Walmart is not evil.


[QUOTE=BannanaRepublic]I mainly slam Wal Mart because of what they’ve done to American businesses.

Walmart is just fine. How can a capitalist or conservative person possibly claim that Walmart did damage to small businesses or any other business?

The reasons Walmart can put under other businesses is the fault of THOSE businesses, NOT of Walmart.

We live in a capitalist society, the reason those businesses were damaged are the following:

  1. Walmart’s chain store competitors, specifically Sears, were not willing or unable to hire people capable of running their distribution system, such as mathematicians, like Walmart did.

  2. Smaller businesses FAILED TO FIND A NICHE. To succeed in a free market, you need a niche. Walmart’s is everything at a low price. Sell stuff Walmart can’t realistically sell at quality and you will profit.

  3. Big government and regulations aid Walmart and other big businesses. Everytime a new tax or labor law is passed, Walmart can easily pass it on to consumers and also deal with the new regulations in bulk, lowering the cost per store to a level much lower than small competitors. Ever wonder why small business thrived before government regulations became such a burden? It is because they didn’t have to wade through the mess.

Every time the cost to enter a market becomes higher, there is less competition, leading to a monopoly. If the costs of government regulations, as the democrats claim are necessary, become higher than the value of entering a market, nobody will enter the market and monopolies will arise, as it is with electricity in much of the nation, and also with health care due to frivolous law suits and other regulations.

Don’t blame Walmart, blame the failure of its competitors and over regulation.


I don’t think Walmart has done anything to destroy American companies; they’ve done it to themselves. If Walmart had kept on selling American only, they’d be the ones out of business now.


We have the unions and the democrats that defend and protect them to thank for American made being a formula for bankruptcy and failure.

If unions didn’t have government protection, they would have never gotten out of hand and still form fair and even contracts between businesses and their workers.

Instead, the government has made it impossible for a company to rid itself of an oppressive union, even if they declare bankruptcy.


That’s the one think I have against the “Buy American” crowd. It has been the slogan of labor unions since time immemorial, because they were fighting competition which would have bitten into their exorbitant raises. It is the American way to spend your money wisely, to get the best value you can for the lowest cost. Protectionism is expensive.


You ask how a conservative can criticize Wal-Mart. My reasons are many.

  1. 70% of the products sold are manufactured in China. If Wal-Mart were a country, they would be China’s 8th largest trading partner. China doesn’t deserve the business, IMHO. China uses child labor, is not hamstrung by the same labor laws as the US, and has a horrible human rights record.

Wal-Mart does not compete on an equal footing with smaller businesses:

  1. Taxpayers subsidize Wal-Mart stores and distribution centers, but do not subsidize small business. New Wal-Mart stores are often granted 10-year property tax discounts or exemptions, so that they do not pay the same property tax rates as other businesses.

  2. Taxpayers subsidize Wal-Mart’s payroll. 54% of Wal-Mart’s employees are not eligible for Wal-Mart’s health care plan, and end up on some form of public assistance for either payroll or welfare.

  3. Wal-Mart has had local governments use eminent domain to acquire cheap land. I am quite opposed to using eminent domain to take land from one private owner and sell it to another.

Yes, we live in a capitalist society. I like level playing fields that keep competition fair. So sue me.


Did Walmart force the places that gave them tax breaks to do so? No, the jurisdictions that did so felt that the JOBS Walmart creates are more beneficial than the property taxes.

Did Walmart strong arm the government into giving out welfare so that they didn’t have to pay their workers the market rate? Nope, that would be the DEMOCRATS.

With the eminent domain, did Walmart force the government to give them land? Nope. Again, a government felt the jobs Walmart would provide were more beneficial than the farmland or whatever it was built on.

These things prove my point that big government is what hurts small business, not Walmart.

You are seeing the end result as the problem instead of the actual problem of government regulation and corruption.

Walmart builds their things in China because of the union devastated manufacturing market in the US. That is also the fault of democrats.


This went public… part of a letter from Wal-Mart to a group of property owners. How ya like this?

Our firm, which is the representative for Wal-Mart on this project, has talked with several local agencies relative to the projected market value for these aforementioned property parcels… In the event any of these property parcel owners are not willing to either sell, or to provide the needed r.o.w. (or) easement, our firm will ask the County to proceed with the necessary legal actions to secure those properties from the property owners to accommodate the public purpose needs to serve the planned project’s utility and road requirements.

I have zero respect for a company that “competes” like that. We want your land. Sell it or we’ll steal it.


Many companies get tax breaks to open up in new places. It’s not just Walmart. The other companies also probably have the same issues with easements.


None should. They should pay their damned taxes just like everyone else. Lowes and Home Cheapo use the same tactics. So you advocate use of eminent domain to steal the land?


Here’s another threat from a Wal-Mart eminent domain fiasco. It’s from a brochure threatening residents when they showed resistance to the use of eminent domain in Hercules, California.

The brochure, however, says: “How much will this process cost the city in litigation expenses?” and warns residents not to let the council “waste your tax dollars and leverage your children’s future over political games.”

Wal-Mart gets so much subsidies and help from government that are not available to smaller businesses that they are almost an extension of government.


Sometimes, through the use of lawsuit after lawsuit to beat some cities and counties into submission. The point is competition, and that Wal-Mart gets deals other businesses cannot, because of their size and attorneys.

Did Walmart strong arm the government into giving out welfare so that they didn’t have to pay their workers the market rate? Nope, that would be the DEMOCRATS.

So what? Who cares who started welfare, you and I are subsidizing Wal-Mart’s payroll. I’d much rather have the choice to subsidize another businesses’ payroll by SHOPPING there. I never go to Wal-Mart. I wouldn’t shop at Wal-Mart if they were the last store in my town.

With the eminent domain, did Walmart force the government to give them land? Nope. Again, a government felt the jobs Walmart would provide were more beneficial than the farmland or whatever it was built on.

The incredibly HUGE issue that you are missing is that eminent domain was used AT ALL to force one citizen to sell property for private purposes. Government officials are culpable, too. It doesn’t make it right, and it’s something other businesses don’t get to do.

These things prove my point that big government is what hurts small business, not Walmart.

It’s really Wal-Mart/government collusion. They do not prove your point. Wal Mart actively seeks to take land that people do not want to sell, and it is evidence of a conspiracy to steal property. Government is wrong for allowing it, and WalMart is wrong for pursuing it.

You are seeing the end result as the problem instead of the actual problem of government regulation and corruption.

This isn’t Sam Walton’s Wal-Mart. He often said that if the people did not want his stores, he did not want to be there. That philosophy went right out the window before his body was cold. Government is corrupt and Wal-Mart abuses that corruption. BOTH are culpable and WRONG.

Walmart builds their things in China because of the union devastated manufacturing market in the US. That is also the fault of democrats.

I don’t think that unions destroyed many of the mom and pop stores that were not unionized in my hometown. The only union in my town was the railroad. The mom and pop stores and local factories were not union. You can blame the unions in places where there were actually unions, but your argument fails in small towns across America where unions don’t exist.


What do you call it when government and private enterprise unite in common purpose? It seems I heard a word for it somewhere…


I’m a firm believer that companies can get too big for the benefit of society. Look at the bailouts we just paid to banks. Wal Mart gets billions in bailouts through taking advantage of unscrupulous government officials and by bullying property owners. The mere fact that they would request eminent domain makes them garbage in my opinion.

I often see conservative whine and moan about jobs moving overseas, but unions have been in decline for some time now. I don’t agree with having so much regulation that businesses move overseas, and yes, that is a problem. But being a conservative doesn’t mean I have to be a fan of “profit at all costs”…


Not sure… I can think of a couple of terms to describe it:



Oh, and one more thing that I neglected to mention. Wal-Mart has been busted MANY TIMES using illegal alien labor in their stores.


And this should be of great concern to conservatives.

Letter from Wal-Mart supporting Obamacare. Look at who the retail giant is in bed with…
Wal Mart & Obamacare? | As Maine Goes

June 30, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

As the Congress considers legislation reforming our health care system, many difficult choices lie ahead. During the debate, we must keep our eyes trained on one clear imperative: reforming health care is necessary not just to improve the health of all Americans, but also to remove the burden that is crushing America’s businesses and hampering our competitiveness in the global economy.

As the nation’s largest private employer, the nation’s largest union of health care workers with over one million members, and a think tank that has been a leader on health care policy, we have worked closely in support of health care reform since 2006, when we came together to help break the stalemate that had defined the health care debate for too long. Now, to move the debate forward once again, we are coming together to advance what we believe are important proposals that should be included in the current efforts to reform our nation’s health care system.

We believe now is the time for action on this vital issue. We commend the leadership of elected officials who are committed to enactment of reform, and we appreciate the commitment to inclusion and transparency which has been present thus far.

We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation. This choice will require employers to consider the trade off of agreeing to a coverage mandate and additional taxes versus the promise of reduced health care cost increases.

Today, health care costs more because we don’t cover everyone – the average family premium costs an additional $1,100 because our system fails to provide continuous coverage for all Americans. And losing coverage pushes people already dealing with financial hardship to the verge of financial collapse. One accident or unexpected illness can financially ruin them. In 2008, half of all people filing for home foreclosure cited medical problems as a cause.

A large and growing uninsured population also cripples our broader economic growth. The higher taxes and premiums needed to meet rising health care costs threaten to consume the benefits of nearly all economic growth over the next four decades, according to research published in the journal Health
Affairs. And the U.S. economy is losing up to $244 billion every year in lost productivity due to the uninsured according to a new analysis by the Center for American Progress.

From a business perspective, health reform could not be more critical. A majority of Americans—158 million—receive their coverage through their job or their spouse’s job, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But few businesses will be able to keep up with the pace at which premiums are rising. Premiums are expected to rise by 20 percent in less than four years, according to research by professors at Harvard University – costing 3.5 million workers their jobs, and cutting insured workers’ average annual
incomes by $1,700.

Fiscally, the growing cost of health care is poised to drive our federal budget over a cliff. A recent report by the Senate Finance Committee found that by 2017, “health care expenditures are expected to consume nearly 20 percent of the GDP.” In his former role as Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), current Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag testified to Congress that, “the single most important factor influencing the federal government’s long-term fiscal balance is the rate of growth in health care costs.”

We believe payment reform and efficiency initiatives need to be at the center of healthcare reform. The President and the Congress have put forward good ideas to improve the productivity of our health care
sector. These policies need to be strengthened and adopted because health care reform without controlling costs is no reform at all.

We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution. We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage, but any alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers to hiring entry level employees. We look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to develop a requirement that is both sensible and equitable.

Support for a mandate also requires the strongest possible commitment to rein in health care costs. Guaranteeing cost containment is essential. One way to ensure savings was recently advanced by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, “Implement pre-specified targets for spending growth and enact a “trigger” mechanism that automatically enforces reductions,” (Crossing Our Lines, Bipartisan Policy Center) President Obama suggested strengthening the role of Med Pac to
help enforce spending discipline. With smart, targeted policies, we can create a financially-viable health care system that enables workers
to change jobs without losing their care, and allows businesses to become more nimble. Health care costs will no longer stand in the way of their ability to retool for the 21st century. Focusing on health care cost savings – and demonstrating a strong commitment to achieving these savings– would make this bill a win / win for employers, individuals and America’s competitiveness.


John Podesta
President & CEO
Center for American Progress (CAP)

Andrew L. Stern
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Mike Duke
President & CEO
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.


As you can probably tell, being accused of not being a conservative raises my brow a bit, but defenders of Wal-Mart really get me going…


I didn’t think Walmart was evil. I defended them. But now on their website they promote the philosophy of sustainability. They are green, they push the environmental agenda. They side with the Obama administration and their goal. Walmart CEO’s are not anything like Sam Walton. Maybe Sam would flip if he saw what was happening to the company he founded. Walmart does a lot of good things. They are not inherently, absolutely and irretrievably evil…but they are on the side of evil.


Yeah, Caroline, I forgot their green agenda. I’m afraid that their lips are the only thing moving on that issue, though. Their “green” campaign starts in America and ends at the shores of foreign manufacturers who aren’t playing the “green” game.

But good catch, I forgot that one, too.


Syndicracy is what I was trying to think of. It means rule by the powerful business interests. Do labor unions count as business interests?