OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

On 14 Aug 2003 20:37:04 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Are y'all trying to tell me that the 'rich' are taking all their tax savings
and
shopping at Wal-Mart? Is this really what you're trying to get us dumb
neo-cons
to believe?


Where did you come up with that??

Pretty weird, John.

What I am trying to tell you, exactly, is in the body of what I wrote. To wit:

It's the Puritan Work Ethic/ Depression mentality of our ancestors at work.
Most Americans feel compelled to seek out the lowest price. Buying from a
more
socially responsible company that treats its employees fairly and isn't
contributing to the great suburban homogenization of America sounds like a
great idea......that somebody else should look into. We're all too busy
saving
$15 on a color TV to give a
dang, personally.

Are y'all trying to tell me that the 'rich' are taking all their tax savings
and
shopping at Wal-Mart? Is this really what you're trying to get us dumb
neo-cons
to believe?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD



You left out this part: "One retail theory is that when the economy is lousy,
EVERYONE shops downward one level. So, even if you prefer Lands' End t-shirts,
you may settle for Fruit of the Loom, or whatever WM sells."

Economists are saying that the tax cuts are having a positive effect on consumer
spending. Wal-Mart is enjoying some of those fruits. The Libs (including you, I
believe) have been criticizing the tax cut as being 'only for the rich'. Thus my
question. Is it only the rich who are doing the spending at Wal-Mart? I was in a
Wal-Mart just last week. It's still the worst, except for K-Mart, place to shop
for anything. It is, however, much closer and more convenient than the other
shopping areas. Also, the parking spaces are nice and big.

If I were one of the 'rich' who were the 'sole beneficiaries of the tax cut',
there is no way I would set foot in a Wal-Mart for anything.

Most respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

You left out this part: "One retail theory is that when the economy is lousy,
EVERYONE shops downward one level. So, even if you prefer Lands' End
t-shirts,
you may settle for Fruit of the Loom, or whatever WM sells."

Economists are saying that the tax cuts are having a positive effect on
consumer
spending. Wal-Mart is enjoying some of those fruits. The Libs (including you,
I
believe) have been criticizing the tax cut as being 'only for the rich'. Thus
my
question. Is it only the rich who are doing the spending at Wal-Mart? I was
in a
Wal-Mart just last week. It's still the worst, except for K-Mart, place to
shop
for anything. It is, however, much closer and more convenient than the other
shopping areas. Also, the parking spaces are nice and big.

If I were one of the 'rich' who were the 'sole beneficiaries of the tax cut',
there is no way I would set foot in a Wal-Mart for anything.

Most respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

The tax cuts aren't "only" for the rich, just highly biased toward the rich.
Bush's people are smart enough to know that an average guy needs a pittance in
savings too, or else the populace would be less willing to turn a blind eye to
a national debt that was climbing, just this week, at the rate of over
$1,000,000,000.00 a day.

Take that $1 billion a day, and divide it up by 250mm folks. About $4 a day
apiece, or $480 a month for a family of four. Hope your tax cut is at least $6k
a year, John- because if it isn't and if you've got a family of four you're
getting hosed the difference.
Oh, and by the way, the guy whose tax cut is $6mm a year? His per capita share
of the out of control national debtbacle is the same as yours.

But, if the government trickles a few bucks down on John Q Public, John Q will
be too busy buying Chinese Junks at WalMart to pay any real attention.

Bread and circuses.

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

On 14 Aug 2003 20:52:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Much snipped.


You need an emergency transfusion of CLUE. Driving the competition under is
"good news" as far as you're concerned?

Uh, just what do you guys think the prices at Wal-Mart will be when they're the
only game around? I already know, "Whatever the market will bear! It's a free
market!"
Yeah right.

The Walton Foundation opens up in a community and intially dumps the price so
badly on everything in sight that the local competition dries up. I know of
specific cases where stuff has been sold *retail* at WalMart for less than
competitors are asked to pay wholesale. WalMart can afford to lose a few
million dollars taking over a local market, but the local businesses can't
afford to lose the same few million trying to hold on to it.

Once the local appliance store, hardware store, shoe store, clothing store,
tire store,
and now grocery stores have thrown in the towels, *up* go the WalMart prices.

I just read where WalMart is now going to be opening the Bank of Walmart in
most communities.

Pretty soon, they'll just be everybody's company store. The few employers left
outside of WalMart won't even bother to write paychecks.....they will just
issue script good only at WalMart.

And you think this is a good trend.


So Old Chuck will grasp at straws in trying to spin this positive story into
a
negative.

No, Old Chuck will see yourt story for waht it is--- an isolated and
destructive example not indicative of the general trend.

Chuck, you seem to think that we, or someone, are singing the praises of
Wal-Mart. Whether WM is good or bad is not pertinent to the discussion. WM was
not the only retailer with good news. The point made was that none of you guys
bothered to comment on what the newspapers, including the Washington Post, were
reporting.

jps, normally the quickest off the mark to copy and paste anything, posted
nothing about the good news. Hey, at least the bad news has slowed somewhat!
That in itself should be good news.

You are, in effect, proving my point. Liberals, in general, don't want any good
news about anything. Good news of any sort must be turned around so that it can
become a power play. In fact, anything good should be prevented, if possible.

Again, respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

On 14 Aug 2003 21:10:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You left out this part: "One retail theory is that when the economy is lousy,
EVERYONE shops downward one level. So, even if you prefer Lands' End
t-shirts,
you may settle for Fruit of the Loom, or whatever WM sells."

Economists are saying that the tax cuts are having a positive effect on
consumer
spending. Wal-Mart is enjoying some of those fruits. The Libs (including you,
I
believe) have been criticizing the tax cut as being 'only for the rich'. Thus
my
question. Is it only the rich who are doing the spending at Wal-Mart? I was
in a
Wal-Mart just last week. It's still the worst, except for K-Mart, place to
shop
for anything. It is, however, much closer and more convenient than the other
shopping areas. Also, the parking spaces are nice and big.

If I were one of the 'rich' who were the 'sole beneficiaries of the tax cut',
there is no way I would set foot in a Wal-Mart for anything.

Most respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

The tax cuts aren't "only" for the rich, just highly biased toward the rich.
Bush's people are smart enough to know that an average guy needs a pittance in
savings too, or else the populace would be less willing to turn a blind eye to
a national debt that was climbing, just this week, at the rate of over
$1,000,000,000.00 a day.

Take that $1 billion a day, and divide it up by 250mm folks. About $4 a day
apiece, or $480 a month for a family of four. Hope your tax cut is at least $6k
a year, John- because if it isn't and if you've got a family of four you're
getting hosed the difference.
Oh, and by the way, the guy whose tax cut is $6mm a year? His per capita share
of the out of control national debtbacle is the same as yours.

But, if the government trickles a few bucks down on John Q Public, John Q will
be too busy buying Chinese Junks at WalMart to pay any real attention.

Bread and circuses.
I assume the $6mm a year guy is still paying about $50mm a year? Could you
calculate that for me, as I'm not a tax expert. His per capita share of the
debt may be the same as mine, but he's sure as hell doing a lot more paying on
the debt than I am. I know that is obvious to you guys, but you never seem to
mention it.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:09:03 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote:

Almost all snipped

However, what sort of ass would gleefully watch American families
and interests be hurt just for political expediency?

But the question above caught my eye. The answer is: Democrat/liberal asses who
want to regain/develop power. The same ones who decry the national debt but
want more and more costly programs.The same ones who will now say that we need a
platoon of guards, preferably civilian, at each power line pole in America. The
same ones who say we need more security forces at our ports. The same ones who
want to give every police/fire department in America all the money they can
spend. The same ones who say, no matter what is done, that it's not enough.

Respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

Jim wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
And the source of your quotes and information is?,,,,



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

Isn't it funny how the libs all of a sudden grow silent when positive economic
news
like this is reported (during GWB's Presidency)?

What a coincidence!


Perhaps a taste of reality is in order here, eh?

Wal-Mart's second-quarter net income increased to $2.44 billion, or 56
cents a share, compared with $2.02 billion, or 45 cents a share, a year
earlier. That result included four cents in earnings from discontinued
operations, with a gain from the sale of its McLane grocery-wholesaling
unit.

Net income from continuing operations rose 15% to $2.3 billion, or 52
cents a share, from $2.0 billion, or 45 cents a share, the company said.
The result was in line with estimates given last week when Wal-Mart
reported July sales.

Sales increased 11% to $62.6 billion, while same-store sales increased 3.2%.

"Consumer spending remained sluggish for most of the second quarter, and
Wal- Mart struggled to rid itself of bloated inventories, which had
grown faster than sales during the previous quarter. Heavy markdowns
pressured profits, and inventory at the close of the quarter was up 9%
from year-ago levels - slightly less than sales, but greater than the
company's longer-term goal for inventory to grow at less than half the
rate of sales. Comparable-store inventories increased by a
low-single-digit percentage, Wal-Mart said.

"Despite the markdowns, Wal-Mart managed to shore up profits, CEO Scott
said. The company reduced its rate of "shrinkage," or losses from stolen
and damaged goods, and continued to reap new benefits from increased
buying from cheaper manufacturers overseas.

"In addition, food margins improved even as domestic comparable-food
sales increased 7% to 9%. The company noted that sales of fresh food,
particularly at its Sam's Club unit, have grown swiftly. Fresh food
carries a higher-than- average margin at the company, noted Bill Dreher,
an analyst at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York."


Not that rosy a picture.










John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD




The New York Stock Exchange news story based upon statements from
Wal-Mart management and those who analyze Wal-Mart stock.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.


Post a link. Otherwise you, as usual, are full of it.


Are you too lazy or too stupid to find the NYSE home page and check out
Wal-Mart?

Typical brain-dead Konservatrash..."if it doesn't have a URL, it doesn't
exist."



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:09:03 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote:

Almost all snipped

However, what sort of ass would gleefully watch American families
and interests be hurt just for political expediency?

But the question above caught my eye. The answer is: Democrat/liberal asses who
want to regain/develop power. The same ones who decry the national debt but
want more and more costly programs.

It is the ejaculate in the White House, a Konservative Republican, who
is rat****ting (yes, I know) up the national debt.

The
same ones who say we need more security forces at our ports.

Nah..why would we want to guard our ports?


The same ones who
want to give every police/fire department in America all the money they can
spend.


A bit of sour grapes there, John?


The same ones who say, no matter what is done, that it's not enough.

Isn't that the motto of the ejaculate in the White House?



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:39:50 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:09:03 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote:

Almost all snipped

However, what sort of ass would gleefully watch American families
and interests be hurt just for political expediency?

But the question above caught my eye. The answer is: Democrat/liberal asses who
want to regain/develop power. The same ones who decry the national debt but
want more and more costly programs.

It is the ejaculate in the White House, a Konservative Republican, who
is rat****ting (yes, I know) up the national debt.

The
same ones who say we need more security forces at our ports.

Nah..why would we want to guard our ports?


The same ones who
want to give every police/fire department in America all the money they can
spend.


A bit of sour grapes there, John?


The same ones who say, no matter what is done, that it's not enough.

Isn't that the motto of the ejaculate in the White House?
Harry, your comments are too off the wall for comment. Notice, however, that I
didn't call you any names!

With utmost (snicker) respect,


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:38:20 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .

So show me where I am viewing life with rose colored glasses Eugene.
Please provide
some facts showing the economy is on a decline.


First of all, the "facts" that you offer are figures released by
coneheads employed by the current administration to put a "spin" on
the current situation. Every administration does this... they have a
product to sell to the American public... themselves..... and they
hire the most competent spinmeister's they can hire. Offering some
Washington bureaucrat's figures as "fact" is, at the very least,
extremely naive.

The best "facts" I can offer is that every day I open the newspapers I
see more plants going out of business and laying off workers. Just
off of vacation, the first newspaper I see proclaims that a local
company has closed sixteen plants and layed off thousands of
workers/taxpayers. Since you are so local and have you eye out for
statistics...... check this out....
http://www.news14charlotte.com/conte...es/?ArID=38346
...how many of those people found jobs? Remember there were only
enough jobs to go around for 1 out of every 4 people..... that means
3 out of four families will have to go hungry or go on some form of
assistance. And notice..... this is in your back yard. Wonder what
those people think of the Gov. statistics?

I just helped put sixty highly qualified mechanics on the street....
prepared for jobs that don't exist in the current economy. About 85%
of the class is keeping their "student" job, tending bar, working at
the carwash, tossing packages, etc., because a bird in the hand is
worth more than a highly paid technical job somewhere out there in the
bushes....

Most states (NC certainly not the exception) have taken such a hard
hit with out of work people, falling inventories, and business unable
to sell their goods and services (WM is not the only business, you
know) that they are having to cut back on necessary services. Their
response is to raise taxes.... see that in Charlotte, yet? Wonder
why?

Can you find the vicious circle in this picture?

As you (should) know the current state of the economy, especially when
considering the
forecast state of affairs,

The point you so conveniently ignore is that these are "forecast state
of affairs" NOT reality. Show me performance.... don't make me
promises. If this isn't "form over substance," I don't know what is.

is about the worst the libs (come on Eugene, admit you are
one)

If it soothes you, feel free to classify me in any way that lends
comfort in you binary world. If pigeon holing me as a "lib" (whatever
that means to you) helps you sort out and order your world... feel
free... Most people, even color blind ones, see in shades of gray,
but if that doesn't work for you..... feel free to talk in terms of
white hats and black hats......

Problem is, people like Hopalong Cassidy, who wore a black hat......
I forget, "was he a bad guy, too?"

could imagine....Improved retail sales, drastic gains in the stock market
(DJ and
Nasdaq), increased productivity, lower unemployment, rock bottom interest
rates...the
list goes on.


I strongly suggest a little book I had to read many, many years ago in
college. It was entitled, "How to Lie With Statistics." It is a
quick read and might make you a little more critical and savvy about
taking all of those "rates" at face value. I find a little bit of
irony in your offer of "rock bottom interest rates" as a sign of a
strong (or recovering) economy....

And the economy is only expected to improve in the coming months.


I Certainly hope it does, but I don't see any quick fix for this dire
situation.

A libs nightmare when a Republican is President!

Right Gene?

No, I don't think so. I would hope that people of any political
persuasion would see the current situation as truly BAD for America
and Americans. True, a stunning turn around would bode well for the
current administration and the Republican party, in general. However,
what sort of ass would gleefully watch American families and interests
be hurt just for political expediency?

On the other hand, would you be pleased to see this sort of economic
turmoil during a "liberal" or Democratic administration just to prove
that the "conservatives" and Republicans were right? Would you feel
the moral imperative to teach these people an ideological lesson?
Would you feel justified? Satisfied?

While we are on the question of questions...... you have posted next
to nothing relating to boating. Where do you boat? What kind of boat
do you have? Have any recent boating experiences to share??


Excellent post Gene, thanks for taking the time to explain things from an
objective perspective (homage to Jesse Jackson).

OT--Wal-Mart Posts $2.44B in 2Q Earnings
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

That's why the new section 179 limit will have such an immediate impact
on
the economy. It's brings future purchases into the here and now.

You said small business at Wallymart. Small business doesn't normally
spend
more than $25K a year.

Medium size $50mm/yr. and up sized businesses are in a much better
position
to take advantage of the increased section 179 but that ain't gonna be
spent
at Wallymart.

You're nuts. My business's capital expenditures have been averaging
approximately 4% of gross sales the last 4 years.


Any business doing 3/4 of a million and up could protentially benefit from
the new increased limit.





My bet is Sam's Club sold washers, dryers, refrigerators, air
conditioners,
and little do dads that mom and pop were getting with their child tax
credits. When the money is gone, so will the spike in business.