WalMart - Of The Morons, By The Morons, For The Morons

I was looking over a few forums the other day when people were talking about how terrible Wal-Mart was. Personally I hadn't shopped there in a while because since Sam Walton died, I've felt that the employees there simply don't care any more so I stopped shopping there. I figured I'd stop by a local 'supercenter' and check out what all the Hubbub was about.
What a mess! I went to a Super Center near me and food in the Grocery section just looked, unappetizing, a lot of the surrounding areas were very dirty. I thought to myself, "No... definitely wouldn't buy any food from this place". So I looked around in Electronics, and saw entire bins of old crappy movies for $5.00, movies that I've long since either rented and thought, OK that was a waste of 2 hours, or simply thought to myself, "I'm not going to waste 2 hours on that". What I found astonishing is that most of the employees that I ran into, didn't speak English (or just barely - or maybe they were just pretending?), and seemed very annoyed with me for even bothering to ask them questions.

I thought OK, they must be selling things here that people actually want for decent prices, but everything that I saw was either the same price, or maybe 1 or 2% lower than where I normally buy these things. Places that usually keep their stores clean, well stocked and filled with employees that are only too happy to help you. Like Whole Foods, Publix, Ace Hardware, Target, Game Stop and Brandsmart.

So I started thinking, OK, I can see the Morons who work here, people who mostly are unemployable in every other sector of the economy, maybe that's why Wal-Mart's cases of theft have gone up so dramatically.

What about those who shop here? What kind of Moron puts himself through the harrowing experience of shopping at Wal-Mart, then waiting in line for a half hour, just to save a few pennies? So let's say you save 5%. The average shopper spends $50.00, is the $2.50 worth your dignity, and the dignity of those that Wal-mart employs?

I used to work at Home Depot when Home Depot actually cared about their employees. There were no caps on Overtime, there were no caps on Salaries, and we would get a raise every 6 months (at least those of us who deserved a raise for hard work). After about 8 years, the company decided to invest a half billion dollars in the Olympics, and take it out of the employees hides. First to go was the overtime, then the raises were cut back to every year, then they put caps on Salaries. Keep in mind that up until they instituted these changes, the company had double digit increases in sales and more importantly profitability the entire time that I worked there. When the changes started coming through, I was in management, so I wasn't as affected by the changes, but all my best people were leaving. After 2 years of these shenanigans, I cashed in my chips and left. I didn't feel that I could be part of a company that no longer believed their employees were their greatest asset. My wife couldn't believe that I sold my stock in the company after I had seen the incredible rises in value over the previous 10 years. I told her, if the company continues to treat employees this way, short term, they may see a rise in profits, but eventually the company will fall. That was back in January of 1999, and while the stock did continue to go up by about 20% over the next year, by January of 2000, Home Depot Started a decline that led to the stock falling to less than half what I had sold it for. Home Depot has now announced that they will be closing stores. Big difference from the days me and my crew were the "Big Dogs" over there. Sure some of it has to do with the housing crisis, by their decline started, well before the housing slump hit.

I see the same things going on with Wal-Mart. It is a company perpetually in decline since the death of Sam Walton. Their stock peaked in January of 2000, eight years after Sam Walton died and over 8 years ago and has been in decline since. How many stores have they opened in the past 8 years? Yet, their market share has fallen considerably in the Retail Sector. Wal-Mart is a company running on borrowed time and running on the Ghost of Sam Walton. Sam actually cared about his employees, he didn't have salary caps, he gave them health benefits, he made them feel like they were part of the team, the current management just sees them as just another cost to be controlled, tells them to get Government assistance for Health Care and limits growth in employee earnings with Salary Caps along with a Zero overtime policy.

I find it amusing though, all these websites out there that pushing:

• We need to regulate Wal-Mart.
• Chicago won't let them build, because they want Wal-Mart to pay a higher Minimum wage than every other business.
• People want Wal-Mart to stop using cheap Chinese Labor.
• People say Wal-Mart destroys their Towns (As if small towns haven't been disappearing for decades)
  

I'm not for any sort of regulation of Wal-Mart or any government intervention what so ever. All I'm saying is we should do like we did with Sears when they cut out all the full time employees and replaced them with kids that didn't care. Stop going there. that's what drove them into Bankruptcy. Sure at Sears it was easy, because they had high prices, and we figured Wal Mart had better prices AND better service. Well they don't have the better services anymore, but there are plenty of other choices out there that do. Sure you might pay a buck or two more, but isn't that worth the headache of dealing with Wal-Mart's shoddy enterprise? Maybe it's just me, but I've been to at least 5 Wal-Marts around Delray Beach, Florida and found every single one of them to be dirty, unwelcoming, filled with people who don't speak English, and filled with people who don't want to help you. So why go there?

Overall, I feel that Wal-Mart has been good for the economy in that it has greatly helped to keep prices low, but Wal-Mart sacrificed customer service to continue to lower prices, while trying to increase profitably. This one catastrophic decision, has left Wal-Mart losing market share, the only reason their sales are up, is because they continue to open new stores, but their percentage of the overall pie in Retail is slipping. A few more years of this will not be sustainable for them and they'll end up going the way of Sears, until a new contender rises up to over power them with the right combination of Better service and decent prices. There's a reason why Wal-Mart is the only company on Fortunes list of the 20 most profitable companies that doesn't offer all it's employees great pay and benefits. It's because it's a model that is unsustainable. Sure, just like Home Depot, you can have short term gains, but they all eventually come back to haunt you. What's ashame is that Sam Walton left David Glass a perfectly decent company that everyone from Wall Street to Main Street loved, and today it's a company that neither feels very comfortable with.

The greatest thing about Capitalism is that we have choices, and we can choose not to patronize businesses who we don't feel are good for the community, so here's one for all you Wal-Mart Morons out there. Just Say No!

Sources for this story:
Wal-Mart Tries Again to Salvage it's Declining Public Image.
Wal-Mart Chart
Wal-Mart Declining Morals
Wal-Mart Movie

Bush Administration Puts Off Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Now that Global Warming has ended, gas prices have gone insane and Nasa has backtracked on 1998 being the warmest year ever, Bush has decided to leave Climate change to his successor. I think it's a good move considering the direction the economy is going. Bush figures he doesn't want to go down as the President who destroyed the Economy, but boy oh boy, are the Enironuts going to go crazy!

Here's the text:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Environmentalists are seething after the administration of US President George W. Bush delayed any decision on regulating greenhouse gases, likely leaving any substantive action to his successor.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a 588-page report Friday that cites "the complexity and magnitude" of the issue and calls for 120 days of public comment.

The decision follows a Supreme Court ruling ordering the EPA last year to devise ways to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.

"The Bush administration's refusal to respond to the Supreme Court and do something about global warming is not just illegal, it is grossly immoral," said Danielle Fugere of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group.

"President Bush's inaction in the face of this crisis is one of the greatest failures of leadership in presidential history," she said in a statement.

The EPA said there were doubts whether "greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act."

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson wrote that regulating greenhouse gases under any portion of the act "could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land."

David Bookbinder, the climate counsel for the Sierra Club environmental group, said the EPA's decision underscores Johnson's "utter lack of credibility."

"The American public, Congress, world leaders, and even career government officials are counting down the days until this administration leaves town and a new president undoes the damage done by President Bush and makes up for nearly a decade of lost time -- time we didn't have to waste in the first place," Bookbinder said in a statement.

The EPA decision came after Bush agreed during the Group of Eight industrialized nations meeting in Japan this week to cut carbon emissions blamed for global warming by at least half by 2050. It was the strongest language yet signed by the US leader.

The Bush administration has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding emissions limits on the nation's industry and has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. (Though in all honesty Clinton signed it, but never presented it to congress).

But the Supreme Court ruled in April 2007 that the EPA must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants and deal with them.

The ruling came in response to legal action undertaken by Massachusetts and a dozen other states and environmental groups that went to court to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.

Environmentalists have alleged that since Bush came to office in 2001 his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.

At a hearing in November 2006, Massachusetts argued that it risked losing more than 4.5 meters (15 feet) of land all along its coastline if the sea level should rise by 30 centimeters (one foot).

But the Bush administration, backed by nine states and several auto manufacturers, urged the court not to intervene, arguing that if the situation was so dire it could not be solved by a simple legal decision.

It further argued that reducing emissions from new US motor vehicles would have only a minor effect on global climate change.

While the court's decision is unlikely to change US policy, it has ramifications on several other ongoing issues, such as the agency's refusal to regulate emissions from electricity plants which produce some 40 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions. Motor vehicles are responsible for just 20 percent.

Global Warming Has Officially Ended

The Space and Science Research Center Issues A Formal Declaration:

Global Warming Has Ended – The Next Climate Change to A Pronounced Cold Era Has Begun.

In a news conference held in Orlando, Florida, Mr. John L. Casey, Director of the Space and Science Research Center, issued a landmark declaration on climate change.

“After an exhaustive review of a substantial body of climate research, and in conjunction with the obvious and compelling new evidence that exists, it is time that the world community acknowledges that the Earth has begun its next climate change. In an opinion echoed by many scientists around the world, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today declares that the world’s climate warming of the past decades has now come to an end. A new climate era has already started that is bringing predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future. In some years this new climate will create dangerously cold weather with significant ill-effects world wide. Global warming is over – a new cold climate has begun.”

According to Mr. Casey, who spoke to print and TV media representatives today, this next cold era is coming about as a result of the reversal of the 206 year cycle of the sun which he independently discovered and announced in May of 2007.

Casey amplified the declaration by adding, “Though the SSRC first announced a prediction of the coming new climate era to the US government and media in early 2007, the formal declaration has been held off pending actual events that validate the previously forecast new cold period. We now have unmistakable signs of accelerating decline in global temperatures and growing glacial ice, coupled with the dramatic if not startling changes in the sun’s surface including unusually low and slow sunspot activity. These signs, in conjunction with the research center’s ‘relational cycle theory ” or “RC Theory” of climate change which predicted these changes, now leaves no doubt that the process has already been initiated. It is also unstoppable. Our world is rapidly cooling. Even though we still may have isolated warm temperature records, the global trend to a colder era is now irreversible.”

As to whether others agree with his declaration, Casey congratulated the many other scientists around the world who had done “many years of outstanding research” which he used to corroborate his own research after he first found these climate-driving solar cycles and formulated the RC Theory. In the news conference he listed and praised more than a dozen other scientists, most in foreign countries, who had come to the same prediction on the Earth’s climate shift to a cold era.

---

---

He said, “I have consulted with colleagues world wide who have reached a similar conclusion. They have likewise been attempting to advise their own governments and media of the impending cold era and the difficult times that the extreme cold weather may bring. They are to be commended for their bold public stances and publication of their research which of course has been in direct opposition to past conventional thought on the nature and causes of the last twenty years of global warming. These last one or two decades of increased global warming were essentially the peak heating phase of the 206 year cycle.”

In the one hour presentation, Casey detailed the solar activity cycles that have been driving the Earth’s climate for the past 1,200 years. He condemned the climate change confusion and alarmism which has accompanied seven separate periods over the past 100 years, where scientists and the media flip-flopped on reporting that the Earth was either entering a new ‘ice age’ or headed for a global meltdown where melting glacial ice would swamp the planet’s coastal cities.

Much of the presentation focused on the positive and negative effects the next climate change will have on the State of Florida, the nation and the world.

Some effects of the coming cold climate on NASA’s space program were highlighted including an extended “quiet period’ produced by reduced solar activity. Casey believes this cold climate era will be the best time since the space program began to conduct human spaceflight. Advises Casey, “With the sun going into what I call “solar hibernation,” the harmful effects of solar radiation on astronauts in space will be minimized.”

Regarding the impacts of the next cold climate period on hurricanes, Casey summarized by saying “I would not be surprised to see the lowest number and least intense storms ever recorded in the US during this cold epoch, for obvious reasons. We should not forget however, the buildup along coastlines and an ever increasing population may continue to make Florida’s hurricanes potentially more destructive in the future, regardless of the number we have.”

On the subject of cold climate effects on agriculture, Casey was not optimistic. “I can see,” he added, “just like the last time this 206 year cycle brought cold, that there will be substantial damage to the world’s agricultural systems. This time however we will have eight billion mouths to feed during the worst years around 2031 compared to previously when we had only one billion. Yet even then, many died from the combined effects of bitter cold and lack of food.”

In his concluding remarks, Casey called on all leaders to immediately move from the past global warming planning to prepare for the already started change to a cold climate.

He ended with, “Now that the new cold climate has begun to arrive, we must immediately start the preparation, the adaptation process. At least because of the RC Theory we now have some advance warning. No longer do we need to wonder what the Earth’s next climate changes will be two or three generations out. But we must nonetheless be ready to adjust with our now more predictable solar cycles that are the primary determinants of climate on Earth.”

The Competing Plans to Destroy America

I was reading the Huffington Post today when I saw this article about how McCain's list of 300 Economists are filled with Skeptics. They were talking about how most of these guys didn't even like McCain, but the truth is, and what they didn't say was that they probably liked Obama even less.

In an era where Congress gets an approval rating of just 9%, the lowest ever recorded people are realizing more and more that Congress, our Candidates and everyone in between in Washington is just in it for themselves.

While the Presidential Candidates might not be in this for themselves, both of them have clearly forgotten that Capitalism has made this country great. Both of them clearly need to read "How Capitalism Saved America" by Thomas Dilorenzo, and "The Myth of Robber Baron" by Burton W. Folsom. Maybe then, they can gain a clear understanding of why America is greater than Europe, and more economically and militarily powerful than any other nation on this planet.

In the mean time, let's take a look at just how each one of these guys is competing to destroy America shall we.

McCain:
John McCain's Cap & Trade system is like a Millstone around the neck of a drowning man. This is a system that would absolutely devastate the U.S. economy by imposing a 3.2 Trillion dollar taxing aparatus that would reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 2.8 Trillion by 2050. What that means is if you divide the median figure by our population, you're looking at over $6000.00 for every man woman and child in this country in lost wages and, or extra fees paid to energy producers. The worst part of this is that the whole Global Warming theory is based upon faulty data that is only now seeing the light of day. Most won't bother to tell you that the current warming cycle actually started back in the 1600's at the end of the "Little Ice Age". There are even those saying that Global Warming has ended. Think gas and electric bills are high now? Just wait for Cap & Trade!

But wait, there's MORE:
McCain's immigration policy is something that leaves much to be desired. While I agree that we should do something about the Millions who live here illegally, the very first thing we need to do is to secure our borders and then, only then will we be able to go ahead and provide some sort of integration program for the people living here illegally, otherwise, you're just encouraging this problem to continue. The truth is, we can't solve problems with Health Care, Education and other issues without first addressing one of the biggest drains on those resources.

Just ONE other thing that bothers me:
I wonder what McCain would say if someone told his Wife, that her Beer company had to come up with a non-alcoholic Wine alternative to beer? He would probably say, "It's her company, she's in the business of producing Beer, not Wine. In that same vein, why is he chastising Oil companies for not producing alternatives to hydrocarbons? Also, why is he chastising them for earning a mere 8% return on investments, when Banks are earning 18%, Software 25% and many other industries earning much more? Government taxes actually take up much higher percentages of what we pay for Gas than anything else, and I'm sure Regulations add quite a bit to that figure as well. What bothers me is that again, he shows that he doesn't have a clue as to how this country runs and what makes it great. Comments like these don't show leadership, they show pandering to the left and pandering to those who don't understand the issues.
Continued After Our Sponsor...

---

---

Barrack Obama:

Where do I even start. When it comes to everything I've just said, his plans are equally as devastating to the economy as McCain's, and even worse. To top it off, his repeal of the Bush Tax cuts will raise the average tax paying families taxes by at least 10%. To many people, they don't quite understand this because they have the Government withhold say $5,000.00 from their income, owe $4500.00 in taxes, and get back $500.00 at the end of the year, so they think they're ahead. Those guys don't realize that they can now forget about that $500.00, it now belongs to Obama and company.

To top it off, most people don't realize that the Bottom 50% in America only pay just over 3% of all income taxes collected, the top 50% pay almost 97%, so this claim on his website that he will "completely eliminate Income Taxes for 10 Million Americans" is a farce, they already pay either nothing or next to nothing. In addition, why should Senior citizens making $49,000.00 a year not have to pay any taxes, when a single Mom with children to feed and cloth, she does have to pay taxes under the Obama plan. I'll tell you why, because since Seniors vote in much larger groups then younger people, this is an outright attempt by Obama to buy their vote. Back to the same old Class Warfare that Democrats are so good at.
It only gets worse, the top 2% that Obama is talking about already pay about half of all income taxes collected. While you may not wish to cry a tear for them, since hell, they are the top 2% right? Well, most of those same top 2% own the small businesses that provide 65% of all the jobs in the U.S. It only stands to reason that the more cash you take away from these guys, the less cash they will have to provide new jobs, and small business is the engine that drives the U.S. Economy, thanks for throwing a wrench in there Obama.

Oh and here's the Good part:
In addition to higher taxes on the top 2%, Obama's also promoting the elimination of the caps on Social Security. This means that a small employer will have to substantially increase what he's now paying to Social Security, especially if that small business has some professionals on his staff who earn more than the Social Security cap, which again means less incentives to hire more.

Stance on Energy & Trade:
Up until 2005, the U.S. was the worlds largest exporter, and the only reason we've fallen behind to 3rd place, was because of the fall in the value of the U.S. dollar in 2005, that continued through 2006, 2007 and 2008. The biggest reason for the fall in the Dollar started with the Dollar sell off in Europe because of the new Euro Currency displacing dollars, but more recently, the dollar has been more and more affected by our imports of Oil, which are projected to be at over a HALF TRILLION a year at current prices or just under half of all our exports. We are literally giving away America's wealth to the Oil producers of the world. What's Obama's stance on more Oil production? Dr. No! Relying on the fantasy of Solar Power and Wind is not a viable solution, these technologies currently cost up to ten times more than hydrocarbons (Oil & Gas), and while yes, they will become less expensive in the future, the goal seems to be to make hydrocarbons cost more, instead of getting alternatives to cost less. Which means we can expect even higher electric bills and gas prices.

What's Obama's stance on trade, more protectionists policies, even though we've had a net gain in Jobs from NAFTA and our other trade agreements, Obama instead chooses to pander to fears instead of facts, that somehow we're getting the short end of the stick. Yes, some people do lose jobs with some of these agreements, but for the most part, more new jobs are created than the ones that are lost. Free trade is one of the reasons the U.S. has some of the lowest levels of unemployment in the world. In the EU, they celebrate that their unemployment is "only 7.1%, here that would be a disaster!

Big Government Spender
Obama is all about investments, and his website is chock full of "We will invest in this and invest in that" so of course, where the heck is all this cash going to come from? The government budget is already almost 2.8 Trillion Dollars, a 13 fold increase since 1970, so how much more do we have to pay in taxes? There's only so much you can take away from the private sector before all the cash starts to disappear. Just like in the 70's when the top rate was 75%, people just won't bother to make the money, if they know they just have to hand it all over to Uncle Sam. That will leave me and you with the bill.

Bob Barr:
Sure Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate is running for president, but they've got the whole thing ass backwards. When the Republicans wanted to take on the Democrats and the Wigs back in the 1800's, they didn't say "Hey, we're going to run Abe Lincoln here for prez. No, they built up a solid grassroots support network, got support from others who wanted to end slavery and give non-landowners the right to vote, along with support for land for the Poor programs. One they had their platform in place, they got congressmen elected, took over a good deal of seats in the house, and then, only then did they field their presidential candidate. The rest is history, the Wigs ended up joining the Republicans and ceased to be a party. However, the Libertarians seem to want change from the top down, instead of from the bottom up.

It doesn't matter that I support almost every issue that the Libertarians have, even if Bob Barr were to win the election, no one in congress or the senate will work with him, so what's the point. He'll have zero political capital to spend and won't get anything done.

So that's it folks, that's our choices:
Which candidate will do his best to destroy America and ruin the foundations on which she was built upon? Do we take:
Dumb or Dumber?