That amount is easily made up from wishful thinking and taxing someone else.
Something for consideration:http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/1991-Thousands-Apply-for-Jobs-at-New-Wal-Mart.html
April,The key thing about the impact study is that someone took the effort to not only make statements, but also transparently lay out his assumptions. In other words, a supportable position has been taken. If you want to rebut it, you should do the same. Otherwise, it is fairly hard to take you seriously.
Econguy,My apologies for not being clear in my post. I am 100% for Wal-Mart in Pullman. What I meant was that the lost tax dollars are not being replaced by the anti-Wal-Marters, they only offer their wishful thinking as a substitute. Gee, not that's never clear either.
Sorry April. I am just used to the unsubstantiated arguments from the anti-Walmart professional class and their local moonbat useful idiots.
I'm becoming accustomed to them myself. Today at the Wal-Mart hearing, I was declared to be "appalling" because I support Wal-Mart. lol
Well, I wouldn't sweat being called "appalling". Remember the quotes from the Evergreen yesterday, "this place isn’t the real world" and "We all know Pullman is far from reality. Literally, Spokane, our closest metropolis, is 75 miles away. As temporary town folk of Pullman, we are far from reality in more than just a distance sense."Well, Pullman IS my reality and a lot of other people's reality. I find it "appalling" that "temporary town folk" would try to make decisions for those of us who don't have the good fortune to live in the "real world".
I'm now used to the wild accusations. I'm sure a number of them intend to boycott my store and harm me any way they can. Their problem is that they can't boycott what they never supported in the first place and as we have witnessed in the Wal-Mart hearings, emotion is not law.
Post a Comment