What is Really Going on Between Obama and Wal-Mart?

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   


With all the reports, protests, threats of strikes, etc. surrounding Wal-Mart over the last year or 2(and beyond) it seems that Obama and his Wife are attempting to push the Wal-Mart perspective on the People. Many believe that Wal-Mart is responsible for business and job loss due to the inability to compete with the prices and products being purchased for sale in their many locations from foreign manufacturers. The low wages and benefits given to their employees while the company "rakes in" the money has hit the lime lite more than a few times. The hatred of this company is growing for more than a few reasons but now we have the President and his Wife seemingly advocating the Wal-mart position but for what purpose?

Michelle Obama delivered a speech at a Wal-Mart in Springfield, Mo., on Feb. 28 2013. The speech was about healthy eating and Wal-Mart’s making healthy food available at a low cost. Of all the Wal-Marts in the Nation why was this "Out of the Way" location used? The People of Springfield have been battling the Wal-Mart being built saying,










a downtown Neighborhood Market will kill local businesses and destroy the flavor of the area
Her speech was indeed about healthier eating but read like a giant advertisement that had the support of the Obamas. Michelle is quoted in saying,

“For years, the conventional wisdom said healthy products just didn’t sell,” Obama said. “Thanks to Wal-Mart and other companies, we’re proving the conventional wisdom wrong.”

Healthier foods have generated more than 70 percent of growth in sales nationwide in recent years, she said. Of more importance to families: “In just two years, Wal-Mart has saved customers $2.3 billion on fresh fruits and vegetables.”
Of course it was just in time for Wal-Marts new icon: “Great for You” which was released on the 28th as well. She did go as far as to state,

“This is not about government telling businesses what to sell and people what to buy,” she emphasized. “It’s about helping parents get by on a budget. It’s about giving kids the nutrition they need to learn and grow and fulfill their God-given potential.” She called it “a moral obligation” for businesses to step up and provide healthy food at affordable prices.
but personally I think this is just her covering her backside.(the quotes above are from Her e)



Now, with all the issues going on in regards to a budget we, Americans, are facing President Obama has decided to nominate Sylvia Mathews Burwell to the position of Directer of the Office of Management and Budget(as announced yesterday 3/3/13). Sylvia Mathews Burwell is the Walmart Foundation head. She runs Walmart’s philanthropic arm and served as the deputy director of the OMB during the Clinton administration and chief of staff to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.(Source)

I'm not saying she is not qualified to take on the responsibilities of the position but is it Wal-Marts philosophies that we want in the form of a National budget? So what is it with Wal-Mart that our current administration seems to be advertising and pushing practices. Is Wal-Mart pushing/paying the administration to advance their corporate agenda?
edit on 4-3-2013 by Agarta because: fixed alignment




posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
In the early 80's, the EPA set much stiffer pollution standards to combat pollution from vehicles. I think they gave the auto industry 2 years or so to comply. The big 3 American manufacturers lobbied for a 10 year extension and got it. The Japanese were left to foot the multi billion dollar research needed to comply. The American car companies research consisted of cutting deals with Japanese car manufacturers and stealing the technology. In some cases they bought stock and took over the manufacturer (Mazda) ( Ford).

In this case, appointing a Walmart insider, could well be to glean the inner workings of Walmart. To what end?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I went in search of campaign contributions by Wal-Mart to the Obama administration and found that there was a $300,000 contribution. This is really nothing but I also found this quote,

Despite being seen as the paragon of a free market capitalist corporation, “Wal-Mart is a top beneficiary of eminent domain takings,” a policy with bipartisan support that has become the tell-tale symptom of Big Business in bed with Big Government — the opposite of a free, competitive market. Source
edit on 4-3-2013 by Agarta because: Spelling



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Wal-mart is just jumping on the eat healthy bandwagon, Michelle Obama has been pushing on America. Not that there's anything wrong with eating healthier, but I have not seen a change in wal marts choices of food. Still the same processed, gmo crap we've been eating for years now.

Honestly this just seems like a ploy to make you're average consumer think they're making health conscious diet choices by shopping at wally world.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
It`s shameful that she is using her postion as first lady to act as a cheerleader for the big corporations that own her husband and the office of POTUS.
she isn`t even trying be secretive about being a shill for her husbands puppet masters.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
It`s shameful that she is using her postion as first lady to act as a cheerleader for the big corporations that own her husband and the office of POTUS.
she isn`t even trying be secretive about being a shill for her husbands puppet masters.


She is a cheerleader for healthy foods and has been the one pushing for home grown garden foods like she has done at the White House. However since most people do not and can not grown their own food of course she would also pressure the people who provide most of the food in America (Wal-Mart) to provide healthy food. She has a also been the one pushing it in schools. So to say she is shilling for big corporations simply ignores the facts.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by Tardacus
It`s shameful that she is using her postion as first lady to act as a cheerleader for the big corporations that own her husband and the office of POTUS.
she isn`t even trying be secretive about being a shill for her husbands puppet masters.


She is a cheerleader for healthy foods and has been the one pushing for home grown garden foods like she has done at the White House. However since most people do not and can not grown their own food of course she would also pressure the people who provide most of the food in America (Wal-Mart) to provide healthy food. She has a also been the one pushing it in schools. So to say she is shilling for big corporations simply ignores the facts.


She can advocate for healthy eating without advertising for any particular brand or store name.
To say that she can`t effectively advocate for healthy eating without being a cheerleader for a particuar store is just nonsense.
This is an obvious case of you scratch my back i`ll scratch yours, and it`s shameful.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


I think you got it wrong. When she first started the push towards home-grown, healthy, organic and natural..it was by pushing her own efforts via the WH garden.

Since many people are in this country are pretty #ing stupid and only see "black woman saying what I can or can't eat. Teh Obamaz comin for my food!", she changed directions and went with something that even the most dense might understand..Wal Mart.

This way she could introduce a conundrum to the public by way of brand/image association. Now, when they see her AND they see Wal Mart in the same image, their mind launches into an endless-loop of confusion and the intended message might actually get through.

If this doesn't work, I'm sure she has plans to get NASCAR involved.

(P.S. - isn't it simply amazing that when something positive is done like trying to get us to become healthier, it's attacked?)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I have nothing to back this up other than my slightly foggy memory...but, a while back I remember reading (most likely here) that Walmart's new distribution centers were contracted out by FEMA and would serve as a quasi governmental organization in the event of shf. Given the debt, the bullets,the light armored vehicles, etc. who knows. Enough to make me pause and rememeber at least...



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher3339
I have nothing to back this up other than my slightly foggy memory...but, a while back I remember reading (most likely here) that Walmart's new distribution centers were contracted out by FEMA and would serve as a quasi governmental organization in the event of shf. Given the debt, the bullets,the light armored vehicles, etc. who knows. Enough to make me pause and rememeber at least...


Nothing nefarious about that. It's about the ability to move stuff efficiently.

Name another organization in this country that has a logistical-infrastructure comparable to Wal Mart.

edit on 4-3-2013 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit

(P.S. - isn't it simply amazing that when something positive is done like trying to get us to become healthier, it's attacked?)
Only if it is Obama, Him or Her.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit

Originally posted by watcher3339
I have nothing to back this up other than my slightly foggy memory...but, a while back I remember reading (most likely here) that Walmart's new distribution centers were contracted out by FEMA and would serve as a quasi governmental organization in the event of shf. Given the debt, the bullets,the light armored vehicles, etc. who knows. Enough to make me pause and rememeber at least...


Nothing nefarious about that. It's about the ability to move stuff efficiently.

Name another organization in this country that has a logistical-infrastructure comparable to Wal Mart.

edit on 4-3-2013 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)


I find it slightly nefarious -- for government to pick commercial winners and losers. Who else has a logistical infrastructure able to move stuff efficiently? UPS and Fedex. And while, no, they don't have the stuff Amazon does. So, if the distribution center quasi governmental status situation is accurate I wonder if that status went out to bid or was it just granted. If just granted and then the First Lady does her big thing there...well, yeah, I don't really like it. Let Walmart rise or fall on its own.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Okay, here's the low down. Hillary was on the Wal mart board of directors and she's the one who gives Obama his orders. There are those above her in the pecking order but she's above Obama. Wal mart also has an incredible logistics and shipping department. If things go down the tubes, you'll want Wal Mart around to help move things. Think of Wal mart as becoming the retailer and supplier for the country when the economy collapses. The biggest fish will survive while the smaller fish die off or get eaten. Buffet, gates, the late Steve Jobs, the very biggest heads of industry and tech are getting in line to be shielded by the government and to help prop it up when things go down the crapper. Facebook, Google, all the social networks are also cutting deals to stay in business under a less than ideal economic new world order. GM, Chrysler, same deal.
You gotta love when people bash Wal mart for being non union. Like unions are on anybodys freinds list, especially the left. They'll get screwed first.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Unions



Walmart is not unionized. If you look at history particular the bolsheviks Unions were a major part. Look at Nazi Germany, it was all about the unions.

One does not have to look far to see what this is all about.

Walmart though not having the best image, does resist the unions. And from a civilian to a marine vet who has been in Afghanistan for the last part of a decade I said Walmarts not a bad company because they are the only supermarket that resists the tyranny of unions. He did not agree however, said that Walmart supports the slavery in China and in a tad bit of truth. He was overseas and didnt see how the economy was destroyed and how the unions exploit the hard working middle class america.. However the very next day they announced they were going to hire vets.

Walmarts not that bad. I dont think.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


This is also a way to "sell" their socialized medicine, with all low-paid wal mart workers getting their "free" health insurance, with wal mart helping them sign up for the program of their choice.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


Yes I agree. But Walmart workers already get pretty good benefits. Anybody I have talked to that has worked there made a decent wage and received benefits and they are not union. I think this drives the establishment crazy. However I do agree that walmart kills some small business. But that is not to say that walmart is good or bad. I think they are a legitimate business that was built from the ground up and the establishment hates that because they are not union.

But as far as Obamas concerned and his wife harping on America being obese. Well I say stick it where the sun dont shine. This is all about unionization and obamacare nothing more or less. She has no business telling people that she is there to prevent obesity when 1000s like her are on food stamps eating watermelons and porterhouse steaks on the taxpayers dime. she can take 1000 watermelons and shove them up her ass and she would probably just poop up food stamps. We all pay for it.

For the record, I don't care if you are obese or not. It just does not make you that attractive and I don't think I want to be forced to pay for it.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
healthy food from walmart huh?

rt.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by theendisnear69
 



Wal-mart is just jumping on the eat healthy bandwagon, Michelle Obama has been pushing on America.


I'd have to agree.

Also, it costs a LOT to eat healthier, simple as that, no matter where you shop. Carbs like rice, noodles, and potatoes go a long way, and are cheap. That's why we're getting fatter. It isn't because of McDonalds...it's because the inflation of groceries has far outpaced the rise in wages and employment. So, you spend more, for less, and less healthy food, to feed your family. Of course we're going to get overweight. Unless you can spend a fortune for fresh veggies, fruits, and leaner meats.






top topics



 
7

log in

join