Disqus - Friends of Sparky159

Re: Blog: Should the Walton family worry about estate tax changes? | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:49:31 -0000

Mt. Rushmore and a
History of the Estate Tax
by Jim Grote

It is ironic in a country as devoted to individual liberty and free enterprise as ours that the most ardent promoters of a federal estate tax have been some of our fiercest patriots and richest capitalists: Thomas Paine, Andrew Carnegie, Theodore Roosevelt and Warren Buffet to name a few. Reviewing the thinking of these four men can only add clarity to the current ideological debate over estate tax reform. One might think of these gentlemen as comprising the Mount Rushmore of the estate tax edifice.

I emphasize the proponents of the estate tax in this brief history because the burden of proof is clearly on the proponents in the current debate (no one in their right mind wants to pay taxes).

Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine wrote the first bestseller in American history: a fiery pamphlet titled Common Sense that successfully encouraged a declaration of independence from England. The 150,000 copies published between January 1776 and July 1776 obviously had the intended effect.

The heart of Paine’s famous pamphlet is his withering criticism of hereditary government. This critique extends through all his works. “All hereditary government is in its nature tyranny.” “Hereditary succession . . . is in its nature an absurdity, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary. . . . History informs us that the son of Solomon was a fool.” “To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second . . . is an insult and an imposition on posterity.”

Later in life, Paine extended his critique of inherited political power to a critique of inherited economic power. (And this critique comes from a man who distrusted governments, disliked taxes and heartily approved of late night tea parties in Boston Harbor!) In two works, The Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice, Paine argued for the adoption of an inheritance tax in England to balance out the unfair distribution of “landed property.” For Paine, it was common sense that God gave “the Earth as an inheritance” to all of God’s children.

Paine proposed that an inheritance tax be used to create a national fund that (1) would give the sum of 15 pounds sterling to everyone turning 21 years old as a compensation for the loss of their “natural inheritance,” and (2) would give a sum of 10 pounds a year to every person over the age of 50 as an early version of Social Security.

~MORE~

Re: Blog: Should the Walton family worry about estate tax changes? | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:51:29 -0000

Andrew Carnegie
While more suspicious of government intervention than Paine, Andrew Carnegie heartily endorsed estate taxes. The greater part of this steel magnate’s little magnum opus, The Gospel of Wealth, is devoted to a discussion of the three possible ways to dispose of wealth: (1) leave it to the families of decedents, (2) bequeath it for public purposes, and (3) administer it during one’s life. Carnegie abhorred the first, tolerated the second, and encouraged the third.

He asks his reader: “Why should men leave great fortunes to their children?” If it is from affection, then it is a misguided affection because “great sums bequeathed often work more for the injury than the good of the recipients.” The instances of public servants that live off their wealth in order to devote themselves to community service are rare. “It is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires these legacies.”

Carnegie sharply distinguishes between the intended consequence of the inheritance tax (to create funds for public purposes) and its unintended consequence (private philanthropy). The unintended effect of the tax is “to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life.” Wealth is a trust fund for the community that helps the rich “dignify their own lives.”

According to Carnegie, philanthropy in a capitalist economy solves the problem of rich and poor alike. “The laws of accumulation will be left free, the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor.” Carnegie concludes his famous tract with the words: “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.”

Carnegie practiced what he preached and gave away more than 90 percent of his estate before his death, leaving a modest trust fund for his family. He included a trust fund for Theodore Roosevelt’s widow because the government at the time made no provision for the wives of former presidents.

Theodore Roosevelt
Perhaps if Teddy had experienced Carnegie’s largesse he would have liked him more. Roosevelt admired Carnegie’s principles, but personally never got along well with him. And as for Thomas Paine, Roosevelt in typical hyperbole once referred to him as a “filthy little atheist.” (Paine was in fact a deist.) However, the Rough Rider was an avid proponent of Paine’s and Carnegie’s commitment to the inheritance tax.

Being a member of the equestrian class himself, Roosevelt paid dearly for his ideas. In a letter to Marshall Stinson, he lamented: “The great bulk of my social friends violently disagree with me on this point. Now I do not intend to refuse to associate with them because of this disagreement, nor yet to give up my own views on the subject.”

Roosevelt formally proposed a federal inheritance tax in a message to Congress on December 4, 1906. His reasoning is quite different from Carnegie’s. Carnegie thought that the wealthy had a particular obligation to the poor. Roosevelt thought that the wealthy had a special obligation to the government itself. “The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.” The wealthy individual needs to pay for the “protection” that the State provides for his or her property ¾ a military force that defends private property from foreign threat and a legal system/police force that protects private property from domestic theft. Roosevelt is echoing Adam Smith’s observation in the Wealth of Nations: “It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of valuable property can sleep a single night in security.”

Like all of the other members of the estate tax Mount Rushmore club, Roosevelt had no intentions of taxing small estates. “It is most desirable to encourage thrift and ambition, and a potent source of thrift and ambition is the desire on the part of the breadwinner to leave his children well off. This object can be attained by making the tax very small on moderate amounts of property.” Roosevelt’s estate tax was aimed at enormous fortunes like those of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Astors and Morgans.

Warren Buffett
A contemporary person of enormous fortune, Warren Buffett, is perhaps the greatest defender of the inheritance tax today. His biographer, Roger Lowenstein, relates the following story about Buffet’s position. “Once, at a Q & A at Cap Cities, Buffett was asked how he would rewrite the tax code. ‘If I really could do it, it would shock you,’ he said. He’d tax the hell out of personal consumption – at progressively higher rates – and impose an ‘enormous’ inheritance tax.”

On another occasion, when asked what the right amount to leave one’s children was, Buffett retorted, “a few hundred thousand ought to do it.” And he sticks to his word. He never gives his own children more than the gift exclusion amount every Christmas – currently $10,000 (indexed for inflation). And he plans on leaving the lion’s share of his fortune to the Buffett Foundation.

Buffett’s critique of inherited wealth is reminiscent of Thomas Paine’s acid-penned diatribes. To quote Buffet: “The DuPonts might believe themselves perceptive in observing the debilitating effects of food stamps for the poor, but were themselves living off a boundless supply of privately funded food stamps. . . . The idea that you get a lifetime of food stamps based on coming out of the right womb strikes at my idea of fairness.”

Like Paine, Buffet argues that if talent can’t be passed down to later generations, neither should money. “Warren explained that if he were the quarterback of the Nebraska football team it wouldn’t be fair of him to pass down the job to a son or daughter, and that he felt the same about his money.”

Over a two-hundred-year history, estate tax proponents have focused on two arguments: the fairness issue (inherited wealth is not fair to the poor) and the productivity issue (inherited wealth is not beneficial for its recipients). Recent empirical studies have confirmed the productivity argument. In The Millionaire Next Door, researchers Thomas Stanley and William Danko conclude that lifetime and testamentary family gifts are both a disincentive to work as well as a disincentive to save. Their findings show that the more dollars adult children receive, the fewer they accumulate, while those who are given fewer dollars accumulate more.

Furthermore, they find that the giving of such gifts (which the authors call “economic outpatient care”) is the single most significant factor that explains the lack of productivity among the adult children of the affluent. Their advice: teach your children to achieve, not just to consume. Stanley and Danko propose a declaration of independence for children of the affluent akin to the one Thomas Paine proposed for the American offspring of the British.

While ethical arguments and empirical studies may not prove ultimately persuasive in the current acrimonious debate over estate tax reform, at the very least the words of these patriots and capitalists provide an interesting historical perspective.

Re: Blog: Should the Walton family worry about estate tax changes? | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:59:33 -0000

Disqus would not let me register as Big D so I had to change my blogging name. So like Boo, Now Sparky, I too have used my local as part of my handle. So I too hope that there is no confusion on later posts.

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:19:40 -0000

Thank GOD! Finally a President that acts like a President! Finally a leader that is looking out for the working people in this country!

Thank God for a President like Obama!

Re: Blog: Check Out The New Website! | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:45:46 -0000

"I like the Edit feature as well!!"

RDS

That doesn't surprise anyone! You, like the rest of the right wing nuts love the idea of editing what you said when it is used against you...... I never said that!..... And poof, it's erased, how convenient for those people like you Bob, who constantly try to rewrite history!

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:03:24 -0000

"As it is now, the EFCA removes free choice by getting rid of the secret ballot for union elections. This is very anti-worker."

realist

Do you smoke crack ALL DAY!? Or is it that you're just a moron, or perhaps a combination of both?

The legislation as it is now written allows the most ANTI-WORKER companies to usurp the laws and stall the votes and fire the pro-union people and water down the union votes that they stall, sometimes for years .

If you know anything about the labor laws as they are now, and you still contend that the EFCA is more anti-labor than the way that they are written at the present time, you are not only UN-REALISTIC in your thinking, you are a LIAR as well!!!!!

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sat, 16 May 2009 05:09:59 -0000

Mark

One question.

If the current secret ballot system is soooooo great for labor in this country as you would have people believe. Why are Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lows, Bank of America, City corp., The World Bank, The World Trade Organization, The Chamber of Commerce and every other ANTI-LABOR organization in this country pouring MILLIONS of dollars in to keep the current secret ballot system the way it is?

BTW you need to learn to read. As I said before; "IF you know anything about the labor laws as they are now, and you still contend that the EFCA is more anti-labor than the way that they are written at the present time"

You see DUMB ASS Taking things out of context and trying to use them as they were NOT intended is a LIE and that would make YOU a LIAR! not me.

Re: Blog: Should the Walton family worry about estate tax changes? | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:09:42 -0000

It isn't enough that the children of the wealthy are given every advantage in life. They receive the VERY best educations, at the VERY best schools; they receive the best medical, food, and dental. They travel the world and live a first class life while growing up. But probably the most important thing is that they meet and become friends with the future captains of industry, the future bank presidents, CEO's of major companies. In short they receive the one thing that the poor and working class will never attain, IMPORTANT CONTACTS!

These contracts are in and of themselves worth a fortune! If someone that has been given every advantage there is to offer and has the very best contacts that there are, and still can't make their way in life on their own, and without their families billions, they deserve to fail!

We don't have royal families in this country but that's where it's headed. Soon the grand kids of the wealthy will be proclaiming themselves as Kings and Queens of our nation!

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sat, 16 May 2009 23:26:11 -0000

"Yes or no. Should workers have a right to have a secret ballot, or not?"

Of course they should! Under the EFCA they do and also I should mention that it is the employees that determine weather or not there will be a secret ballot or not. As apposed to the way it is now, which allows the company to make all the decisions regarding the way the vote is held! With the EFCA all it would take is for 30% of the workforce to call for a secret ballot and that's what they have.

Now, I've answered your question why don't you do the same for me?

'If the current secret ballot system is soooooo great for labor in this country as you would have people believe. Why are Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lows, Bank of America, City corp., The World Bank, The World Trade Organization, The Chamber of Commerce and every other ANTI-LABOR organization in this country pouring MILLIONS of dollars in to keep the current secret ballot system the way it is?'

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:37:53 -0000

" When you tell people they DESERVE MORE, soon they begin to believe it, even if they didn't think that way before!!"

God forbid that anyone would tell someone that they are being taken advantage of! That's one of the, if not the, most anti-labor posts of pure drivel that I have ever had the misfortune to read. It's funny, but after reading your tripe I honestly feel more dumber than I did before I wasted the time to digest the ignorant shit that you spew!

"If these companies were actually ANTI-WORKER, they wouldn't hire people 'full time' and give them wages, raises and benefits, they would only hire part-time people, and pay them minimum wage!!"

There are several contributing factors here.

1.) Its hard enough to find good workers as it is. So when a company has someone that is working out they try to give them JUST enough to keep them.

2.) There are things called LABOR LAWS that prevent this sort of crap.

3.) The threat of UNIONIZATION manages to keep a lot of companies in line.

To name a few!

"The problem I see, is the fact that you refer to those groups as being ANTI-LABOR, that is YOUR view of them, because you are ANTI-BUSINESS and the MAIN reason that workers and businesses have so many problems"

No, dumb ass I’m not anti-business! I am against companies that treat there employees like a commodity and not human beings. I'm against companies that continuously break labor laws and take advantage of the workers. Companies that don't honor a workers right to form a UNION! Bob I work for more companies in a given year than you did in your life, and I have only had issues with one in particular over the last 20 or so years. But then I work for UNION companies!

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sun, 17 May 2009 02:35:36 -0000

Where do you get this shit! Where do you get this 50%-1 being "disenfranchised?

Look, if you sign the card you have "voted" yes, or for the UNION. If on the other hand you didn't want to sign the card, you have "voted" no, and against the union. Ether way your vote is counted. The vote total and percentages come from the total number of employees at a given company. I might also add if you wanted to sign the card and were over looked and didn't get a chance to sign then that would be a shame because your "yes" vote would then count as a "no" vote, unlike other elections not voting counts. On the other hand if you were against forming a union, then your voice is still heard because there is no card with your name on it therefore your not voting (which you wouldn't have anyhow) would then count as a "NO VOTE" and again there is NO foul!

BTW It is the companies that FIRE, THREATEN, BULLY and intimidate employees. Union organizers don't have the power to fire and threaten jobs, not to mention that if organizers try that crap the company would have the labor board on them like a duck on a June bug.

Now again I have answered your questions so, again I'll ask you to answer my question. They say the third time's a charm. Let's see if you try to duck it again.

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sun, 17 May 2009 08:28:04 -0000

"In fact, EFCA takes away a worker's right to a secret ballot. In this aspect, at least, it is more anti-worker than things are now."

No EFCA does not take the right to a secret ballot away, that's a LIE!

EFCA gives the employees the right to CHOSE a secret ballot if they desire one. It only takes 30% of the employees to request one. As it stands now the COMPANY makes the decisions as to the election not the employees. That (EFCA) to me sounds fairer than the current system.

You know I have answered yours and Marks questions and I have asked only one and you and mark REFUSE to answer it! What are you afraid of? I'll ask again.....

If the current secret ballot system is soooooo great for labor in this country as you would have people believe. Why are Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lows, Bank of America, City corp., The World Bank, The World Trade Organization, The Chamber of Commerce and every other ANTI-LABOR organization in this country pouring MILLIONS of dollars in to keep the current secret ballot system the way it is?

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sun, 17 May 2009 08:56:16 -0000

During the election union organizers cannot fire you for not going along with their agenda. On the other hand the companies have, do, and will fire people for union activity, it happens all the time! It's common to FIRE up to 20% of the workforce for trying to organize. I have NEVER heard of an employee, that’s what union organizer consists of, being able to fire their co-workers! Its management that has that power not the workers!

After the election if you don't want to belong to the union that was voted in by the MAJORITY of the employees then yes you can find employment elsewhere. The same goes the other way, if the election ends with a no vote and you don't like the outcome it's your right to move on.

As for my question, why don't you tell me which one(s) I have put up there that are labor friendly and tell me how they are, and I'll take them off the list and apologize for calling them anti-labor. But the truth is you know that I'm right, so just answer the question that you keep ducking.

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sun, 17 May 2009 08:59:02 -0000

I have answered every one of your questions and now it's your turn!
I'll ask again.....

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sun, 17 May 2009 09:13:42 -0000

"Then they employees do not have that right, if others as a group under the EFCA can now take away this right"

Yes they do! If they have 30% or more that requests it. How much more FAIR can you ask for? And if you are so concerned for the workers rights where is your outrage about the workers that want a card check and can't have it because the company wants a secret ballot. Aren't you being a bit HYPOCRITICAL?

Again, I'm not letting this go. Answer my question......

Re: Blog: President Obama: Still Behind Employee Free Choice | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:41:08 -0000

"As I have only worked for 4 companies in my lifetime, you probably are right, but do you WORK for those companies as an employee, or do you contract out your labor through the union? In other words, do these companies HIRE YOU personally or do they hire your services for a short period of time from a union labor pool?"

I hire on just like everyone else. I bring in two forms of I.D. and I fill out an application for employment, I fill out a W-2, and take a U/A. I do this EVERY TIME I START A NEW JOB. I even do this if I get laid off at one location and hire on with the same company at a different location the very next day.

"I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer!!"

The question was NOT asked to you Bob.

So as you stated they spend millions to stop the employees from being able to form unions! The employees have a choice, sign the card check, or don't sign the card check, ether way they get a choice. As it stands now all the choices are given to the company, and the workers have to live with their decisions from them regarding how they get to vote. In other words NO CHOICE AT ALL!!!!!

That's why they (business) want the system to remain as it is. This whole secret ballot issue has been some of the most anti-labor legislation ever written, and these anti-labor companies and corporations are doing everything that they can to keep things just the way they are, next to impossible for the workers to exercise their legal right to collective bargaining.

If it is good for business like the ones that I listed (and it must be otherwise they wouldn't be spending HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars to keep things just as they are) YOU CAN BET THAT IT IS BAD FOR LABOR!!!!!

Re: Blog: Friday Speak Out Round Up: Unexcused absences and undemocratic practices | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:45:20 -0000

Well I'll tell you what Bob, why don't you talk to the owners of the power plants in the U.S. and have them keep them closed for the next 10 years or so, and I'll keep that one job till I retire. But until then I'll work the scheduled maintenance and emergency shut downs that help to keep your lights on. BTW they usually last from 4 days to 12 or 14 weeks per shut down. I should also mention that I've never walked off (quit), drug up (quit) or been run off (fired) from a boilermaker job in my life. Probably somewhere around 150 (give or take) clean lay off's over the years.

Re: Blog: Friday Speak Out Round Up: Unexcused absences and undemocratic practices | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:05:03 -0000

Well Mark that's where you got it wrong again. But what else is new.

Mark if you haven't noticed Sparky and I are PRO-UNION, that would make us more, all about the group, the group in this case being the workers of the world.

Re: Blog: Friday Speak Out Round Up: Unexcused absences and undemocratic practices | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Big_D_592 — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:49:27 -0000

I can't tell you how sorry I am that this happened to you. You're not alone, there are too many Wal-Mart stories like yours to count, and the numbers would be staggering.

My mother in law had a similar experience with WM in Michigan. If you come to this sight for any length of time you'll find that you're not alone.

This is one more reason for the EFCA; with a union you have a grievance process that you can appeal this type of wrongful termination. You have a steward that you can go too, to get results, if that doesn't work there is a chain of command that will look into this type BS. With a union you have access to legal representation that will litigate this for you at no cost to you. But when you have no union protection; what you get is what you got!

You should call your representatives and tell them to vote YES TO EFCA and you should do it TODAY!!!!!

http://www.freechoiceact.or...

Re: Wal-Mart Agrees To Settlement In The Desert

Big_D_592 — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:31:19 -0000

Ken

My mother in law was a test scanner at a Wal-Mart in Michigan for 17 years; she was making around $20.00 per hr. Her position was eliminated by the store and she was transferred to night stocker (62 years old 102 lbs) with a $12.00 per hr. pay cut. Her immediate supervisor told her that she was making too much money and that the test scanner position was losing the store too much money. Of course she was not able to do the work that was required as a night stocker. The manager that told her this quit shortly afterwards. I've tried to get her to bring suite against the Beast but she won't do it. I should also mention that I've brought this up on previous posts before.

Re: Wal-Mart To Small Businesses: While One Hand Giveth, The Other Hand Taketh Away

Big_D_592 — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:01:42 -0000

Tom

What in God's name are trying to say? BTW that's MIDWEST CITY.

Re: Wal-Mart To Small Businesses: While One Hand Giveth, The Other Hand Taketh Away

Big_D_592 — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:53:59 -0000

Tom

I apologize to you from the bottom of my soul. I really showed my ass this time. I hope you can forgive my ignorance.

Re: Green Day Slams Wal-Mart

Big_D_592 — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:53:06 -0000

"That is NOT censorship, it's just refusing to sell a product"

Bob do you know the definition of censorship? Let me help.
This is a good place to find out Bob!

"What is censorship?"
http://gilc.org/speech/osis...

'censorship
n.

censoring, suppression, licensing, restriction, forbidding, controlling the press, governmental control, security blackout, news blackout, thought control, the censor's blue pencil, expurgation, bowdlerization, editing, deletion, bleeping; see also restraint 2.'

The fact is Bob, What Wal-Mart is doing is not only censorship but it is redefining the whole concept!

'We live in oppressive times.We have, as a nation, become our own thought police; but instead of calling the process by which we limit our expression of dissent and wonder 'censorship', we call it 'concern for commercial viability.'
-Mamet, David Alan

Re: Green Day Slams Wal-Mart

Big_D_592 — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:33:36 -0000

Here's one for you Sparky

"Said you ain't seen nothin' till you're down on a muffin
Then you're sure to be a changin' your ways
I met a cheerleader was a real young bleeder
Oh the times I could resist.......

Seesaw swingin' with the boys in the school
And your feet flyin' up in the air
Singin' hey diddle diddle
Put your kitty in the middle of the swing like you just don't care"

"Walk this way" by Areosmith

Re: Green Day Slams Wal-Mart

Big_D_592 — Sat, 23 May 2009 03:04:34 -0000

Bob

This is the key here, Wal-mart would carry Green Days new C/D if they would CHANGE their lyrics. When you require anyone to change their lyrics in order for their music to be carried, its CENSORSHIP plain and simple!

"Just look at that definition you presented, is Wal-Mart - suppressing, licensing, restricting, forbidding, controlling the sale of, blacking out, thought control, expurgating, editing, deleting, or bleeping the CD's?"

That's just it Wal-mart is requiring Green Day to; restrict, edit and or delete portions of their C/D, Wal-mart is also forbidding the sale of in their store with out change.

"If a mom & pop store decides not to sell Playboy or Hustler, are they censoring those magazines or are they just choosing not to sell them?"

No, that would not be censorship, but if they were requiring them to black out nude photos, then it would be. That's what Wal-Mart is doing to Green Day, they are requiring them to change the lyrics to conform to their wants, and that is CENSORSHIP!