NYC Liberals Hate Helping Poor People

Posted: Jul 01, 2014 12:01 AM

New York City Liberals would apparently rather have charities go without millions of dollars, than see the company get a little good press. Just over half of the 51 members of the New York City Council wrote a letter to the retail giant, demanding that it stop donating millions of dollars to local city charities because… Well, because liberals hate Walmart, I guess. According to the NY Post:

“We know how desperate you are to find a foothold in New York City to buy influence and support here,” says the letter, obtained by The Post and addressed to Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation. “Stop spending your dangerous dollars in our city,” the testy letter demands. “That’s right: this is a cease-and-desist letter.”

Wow… “Dangerous” dollars? Yeah. Even when a dollar goes to a non-profit that buys groceries for struggling New York families, it’s “dangerous” if it comes from a profitable non-union-company. (Liberal outrage is kinda fun to watch, isn’t it?) How dare Walmart donate over $3 million dollars to important New York charities like the NY Women’s Foundation, or Baily House! How dare a national retail chain donate some of its profits to better the lives of disadvantaged New Yorkers! (Still waiting on that sarcasm font…)

Twenty six of the 51 members of the Council -- feeling that Walmart’s multi-million dollar effort to help impoverished families was nothing more than a corporate ploy -- signed onto the letter.

Unsurprisingly, liberal outrage is once again hurting the very people progressives claim to champion. After all, what is so “dangerous” about America’s largest employer? Not only does Walmart offer people the opportunity to enter the workforce, but they also offer goods and services to low income families at prices that are actually affordable. Oh… And (apparently) they make a real monetary difference to the operating budgets of well-intentioned charities. What evil capitalist pigs!

Of course the Liberal anger toward Walmart has always been somewhat perplexing. I mean, heck, it’s largely “disadvantaged groups” that benefit disproportionately by having access to low priced foods, clothing, and household goods. It might come as a shock, but most poor people can’t do their shopping at Neiman Marcus. Walmart, as it turns out, gives families the ability to “get the basics” without breaking the bank.

And yet… The war against Sam Walton’s success story continues unabated. And why destroy a low income family’s chance of actually being able to afford groceries, clothing and home supplies? Well… Because Walmart isn’t union friendly. And because Walmart dares to dabble in the idea of “right to work”, they (apparently) shouldn’t be allowed to provide the masses with goods and services that actually fit the budget of some of the city’s most disadvantaged demographics.

Of course, liberals will try to claim the moral high ground while lobbying against value-retailers like Walmart, by claiming that their opposition is based on how poorly the big-box store pays its employees. (Which is a pretty exaggerated truth.) “They perpetuate poverty” scream the liberals. The argument, honestly, is a pretty intellectually bankrupt notion to mutter. Sure, few people ever get rich working at Walmart (um… except, of course, the current CEO who actually started out as a part time employee), but let’s face it: Stocking shelves for any value retailer isn’t exactly supposed to be a career. It’s a job. And, just to be clear, it’s really just an “entry level” job.

I mean, you don’t hear about a bunch of 65 year olds getting gold watches for being gas station attendants. I don’t remember hearing about the wave of pension payouts for life-long grocery store clerks. And there probably aren’t too many “retail sales associate” bachelor degree programs in the higher education system. The vast majority of jobs available at Walmart are intended to open people up to other possibilities. They introduce people into the workforce, and provide them with the environment to acquire skills and experience. (I know: How evil, right?)

The New York City council’s “cease and desist” letter, pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with modern liberalism. An unbridled hatred for an American success story (Walmart), has compelled them to not only condemn the good that such a business could bring to low-income communities, but also the millions of dollars they donate to important charities. Liberalism, apparently, is more about perception and bullying, than helping the victims of circumstance. To the Manhattan liberal, making a difference in people’s lives is not nearly as important as demonstrating your hatred for Sam Walton.