More Job Losses

[jcrc]

what about welfare? it's designed to help people get out of the rut they're in. do you think your money should go to paying for a war that was not necessary? do you think your money should support public schools? do you think your money should pay the salary of your elected officials?

i don't want to pay the salary for many of these people. i don't want to pay for a war. i do want all the money i pay in taxes to go to social programs and education. i don't agree with military spending in excess like we're doing now. i don't agree with spending money on wiretapping programs. i don't agree with creating mandated education programs without proper funding.

Liberals have their agenda and their pet programs, neo-cons have their agenda and their pet programs. They have one thing in common; they are spending this nation into the poor house.

[HartfordTycoon]

Your article "The self-made myth" just went counter to your statement above. The inherited wealth cannot be greater than the original wealth because we have an inheritance tax. The inherited rich cannot get richer unless they managed their wealth wisely. Most of the wealth are self made. Yes the society made the condition possible for people to get rich, but we all have the same condition as the self made rich. You can not use past injustice as an excuse. I know of recent immigrants that came over with no money, and can't speak a word of English, yet some of them are self made millionaires. I know of blacks from ghetto who are self made millionaires. Even if most don't become millionaires, middle class is very obtainable. If you don't think the society reward hard work and earning your way out of poverty you are sadly mistaken.

It rewards hard work for some. Others get screwed. That's the way it is and will alway be and believe it or not that really doesn't bother me. I don't think it goes counter to my point at all. I think the fact remains that most rich inherited it, and certainly amongst the super wealthy, inheritance played a large role for most. Did you not read this:

With more millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support, a new report says.

I guess I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I think this is reffering to more as in: more than before. I think if it was most, it would have said most or the majority for clarity's sake.

[runawayjim]

Liberals have their agenda and their pet programs, neo-cons have their agenda and their pet programs. They have one thing in common; they are spending this nation into the poor house.

let's stop all government spending. let people pay for everything. that leaves a majority of the nation at a severe disadvantage.

we need to fix the problems that put these people at such a disadvantage in the first place. the government needs to help many of them find jobs because no one will hire them.

meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. we need a modern day robin hood.

[drc72]

I know of recent immigrants that came over with no money, and can't speak a word of English, yet some of them are self made millionaires.

That would be my parents, but they are not millionares. They built a comfortable life for themseleves with hardly any government help. They came to an unknown area with hardly a penny to their name, but yet they worked hard and made sacrifices and the rewards payed off. Should they be penalized for being succusful?

[HartfordTycoon]

^^ Of course no one should be penalized. Just like my parents shouldn't be penalized for being successful. Your family, just like mine and most of ours here, also havn't been hording America's wealth for centuries at the expense of everyone else. Honestly, I don't know you guys all that well, but I don't know if anyone of us are even subject to the estate tax or anything even relevant to what we are asking from the richest in society. The fact is the middle class give a much higher proportion of their wealth to the government than does the rich. That's not fair either. Really there is no way to be fair, and many republicans would like to strip an already bare bones government assistance policy down even more. That's what I don't understand. I can understand some poeple being against the creation of a new large public healthcare program. I don't understand why the rich and powerful should be able to horde all of the resources. So I am looking to strike a balance, that in my opinion is not there.

[jcrc]

It rewards hard work for some. Others get screwed. That's the way it is and will alway be and believe it or not that really doesn't bother me. I don't think it goes counter to my point at all. I think the fact remains that most rich inherited it, and certainly amongst the super wealthy, inheritance played a large role for most. Did you not read this:

With more millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support, a new report says.

I guess I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I think this is reffering to more as in: more than before. I think if it was most, it would have said most or the majority for clarity's sake.

With more millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, that would mean more rich made not inherited their wealth. No? there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support means do not presume they made it all by themselves, rather society played a role contributing to their success. Where does it say most rich inherited it?

How does some get screwed for their hard work? You will need to explain this to me.

[damus]

How does some get screwed for their hard work? You will need to explain this to me.

They work day in day out getting all the o/t they can get ... at minimum wage or close to it. They think like a poor person.

[jcrc]

let's stop all government spending. let people pay for everything. that leaves a majority of the nation at a severe disadvantage.

we need to fix the problems that put these people at such a disadvantage in the first place. the government needs to help many of them find jobs because no one will hire them.

meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. we need a modern day robin hood.

This is just plain silly. No one is suggesting a free for all sytem anymore than a craddle to grave system. What made you think the majority of the nation is at a severe disadvantage? How can the government help many of them find jobs when no one will hire them? Government can't do much about cyclical unemployment nevermind structual unemployment.

[runawayjim]

This is just plain silly. No one is suggesting a free for all sytem anymore than a craddle to grave system. What made you think the majority of the nation is at a severe disadvantage? How can the government help many of them find jobs when no one will hire them? Government can't do much about cyclical unemployment nevermind structual unemployment.

i'm not talking about cyclical unemployment. i'm talking solely about (pulling out my econ book) structural unemployment. there's a poor match because many have skills above and beyond what jobs there are available, yet they're willing to work those jobs. however, when you see people not get these jobs because they're "over qualified" what are they supposed to do? sit around and wait?

if you're not suggesting a free for all, then what are you suggesting? you have yet to make any good suggestions for how we should deal with this problem. i'm throwing stuff out and you're shooting it down without any other suggestions. so unless you're that heartless that you think that the only way is for them to help themselves, what do you suggest? our current system obviously isn't working. it's abused by many who don't need it preventing those who do from getting assistance. other than that, what can we do? those who receive assistance generally don't have health care. what are they to do? remain sick? get the minimal care at hospitals, care that you pay for in your insurance premiums? i am honestly curious what you have in mind.

[Cotuit]

Do you know we have a strategic helium reserve since 1925?

How can we pay for it?

If we have enough money to stockpile helium do you think maybe we have enough money to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it?

[runawayjim]

If we have enough money to stockpile helium do you think maybe we have enough money to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it?

or they could sell the helium to a bunch of hippies... and then we'd have even more money.

[Cotuit]

We both agree on something -- the government is ANTI-GAY!! I don't care who lives next to me, just as long as they don't bother me. I don't have problems with gays -- except the one who try to be in your face about it (the gay rights parade people, which are the MINORITY of gays, but they need to COOL it).

So we're OK as long as we stay in our homes where you can't see us and don't have marches demanding our rights and celebrating our culture?

I'll remember to steer clear of your face.

I don't mind them being married, but we'd need to revamp the marriage laws, since in Vermont the law is that you can be 16 to marry.

Why would Vermont have to change it's marriage law? If it's OK for heterosexual marriages to include a person as young as 16, why is it not OK for homosexual marraiges to?

[Cotuit]

Shouldn't they have the right NOT to sell something? I guess you are saying that Border's and Barnes & Noble should sell GAY MAGAZINES and Blockbuster should sell PORN? I believe if a pharmacist DOES NOT want to sell a drug like RU486, it is his right. If someone doesn't like it -- open a Phamacy.

No, pharmacies should not have the right to not sell medicines they have a social issue with. Equating access to medicine with access to porn is totally ridiculous. Pharmacies are licensed and drugs have to be approved by the FDA, if a drug is approved by the FDA, pharmacies have an obligation to provide them. Rather than me not liking it and having to open a pharmacy, the pharmacists who don't like it should choose another profession.

PS: Borders and Barnes & Noble DO sell GAY MAGAZINES.

Poor? In the USA. I'd rather be poor in the USA (where 96% of the poor have at least 2 tvs)

Do you have a source for this 96% figure?

[Cotuit]

i don't want to pay for a war.

Well here's the rub, the haves want to have their cake and eat it too. Let's fund an illigitimate war, but stop the bus when we try to discuss health care for the poor. There are plenty of things I'd prefer not to have to pay for. But I'm part of a society, and as someone who makes enough money to finance his own life, and is lucky enough to have health care through my employer, I feel it is my duty, as a human being, and as a member of society to ensure that the other members of my society and my species are able to have safe and healthy lives.

[GRDadof3]

This is a good book that is full of common sense that really isn't common sense to most people. It's a quick and interesting read.

That is a great book. Most millionaires are not born millionaires, but become millionaires. Not necessarily through hard work, but by taking huge risks and sometimes stepping on the backs of others.

I wouldn't consider that "report" by CBSMarketWatch a credible study. It sounds like a bunch of interviews. In the GR Metro area alone, there are probably over 10,000 millionaires, and I would bet there are even more in Connecticut. Were any of their financial successes "studied" by CBS? Probably not.

If it's not so easy to become financially successful in this country, then why do so many of my immigrant neighbors have so much cash, and send so much back home to family? Many of which can hardly speak English.

[damus]

No, pharmacies should not have the right to not sell medicines they have a social issue with. Equating access to medicine with access to porn is totally ridiculous. Pharmacies are licensed and drugs have to be approved by the FDA, if a drug is approved by the FDA, pharmacies have an obligation to provide them. Rather than me not liking it and having to open a pharmacy, the pharmacists who don't like it should choose another profession.

What about the doctors' rights? I'm sure they should be privilidged to not prescribe something that is not along the same moral lines as they are, whether it be RU486 or a drug made by a company with shady business practices (i.e. animal cruelty, past approved drugs turned out to be harmful and the company knew about it and did nothing).

I see both sides with the Pharmacist argument. The pharmacist is not prescribing the drugs, and if pharmacists had the right to deny who's to say 1: they can't be bought off somehow or 2: every pharmacist in town doesn't put the same restrictions. At the same time, say the pharmacist also has serious reservations about a drug for whatever reason I can see how he'd be against prescribing it. Most pharmacies are corporate, and should have policies to be followed by all employees. A private pharmacist(which, while dying out there are still a few at least where I live) might get more leeway.

Whether you agree with it or not, there's a principle here. People feel that there's a civil right to the "unborn". While I believe that abortions should be much harder to get than they are today and much more restricted, I think the morning after pill should be widely available. Over the counter access should at least be considered. Back to the civil right argument, would it be fair for the government to mandate that you either run a whites only pharmacy or a blacks only pharmacy? In many peoples' eyes this is the same thing. Again, it's different if it's a corporate policy and you choose to work there.

[runawayjim]

What about the doctors' rights? I'm sure they should be privilidged to not prescribe something that is not along the same moral lines as they are, whether it be RU486 or a drug made by a company with shady business practices (i.e. animal cruelty, past approved drugs turned out to be harmful and the company knew about it and did nothing).

I see both sides with the Pharmacist argument. The pharmacist is not prescribing the drugs, and if pharmacists had the right to deny who's to say 1: they can't be bought off somehow or 2: every pharmacist in town doesn't put the same restrictions. At the same time, say the pharmacist also has serious reservations about a drug for whatever reason I can see how he'd be against prescribing it. Most pharmacies are corporate, and should have policies to be followed by all employees. A private pharmacist(which, while dying out there are still a few at least where I live) might get more leeway.

Whether you agree with it or not, there's a principle here. People feel that there's a civil right to the "unborn". While I believe that abortions should be much harder to get than they are today and much more restricted, I think the morning after pill should be widely available. Over the counter access should at least be considered. Back to the civil right argument, would it be fair for the government to mandate that you either run a whites only pharmacy or a blacks only pharmacy? In many peoples' eyes this is the same thing. Again, it's different if it's a corporate policy and you choose to work there.

first of all and i should make this clear again. i did not once talk about RU-486. that's the abortion pill. the drug i am talking about is the emergency contraceptive, aka the morning after pill. the abortion pill actually aborts a pregnancy. emergency contraceptive prevent conception from happening. conception, contrary to the opinion of many conservatives and pro-lifers, is not the point where the sperm fertilizes the egg, but rather when the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterus. emergency contraceptive prevents this from happening. RU-486 is something much different and much more controversial.

doctors have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to decide if they should prescribe a drug to someone based on their PERSONAL beliefs. they take an oath and must adhere to a code of ethics. personal beliefs, if they contradict this code of ethics, should not be followed. doctors have no right to deny a woman a prescription for emergency contraceptive. doctors do have a right to not prescribe something they feel would not help or would, in fact, harm the patient. if they know for certain that the drug will not harm the person and could only benefit them, they must prescribe it. that's generally the case with emergency contraceptive (again, NOT RU-486).

as for your idea on corporate chain pharmacies, the biggest in the area, CVS (i'm sure you've heard of them) has a policy of allowing their pharmacists do deny customers their prescribed medication based on the pharmacist's personal beliefs. this happened in RI. this isn't a matter of religious only pharmacy and non-religious pharmacy (where i think you're going with the black/white thing). this is a matter of pharmacists following their own code of ethics. their job is to fill prescriptions which their customers were given by a licensed medical doctor. pharmacists are licensed by the state, which, last time i checked (although this is being attacked by our current administration) has a separation of church and state. those moral beliefs about contraception are religious beliefs. they do not belong in our government. if a pharmacy allows personal beliefs to prevent a pharmacist from filling a prescription, that policy should be posted in big letters on teh front of the building. i can guarantee that the pharmacy will go out of business.

i am against abortion as a form of contraception. but if the life of the mother is at risk, it's necessary. yes, i am male, so i don't really have much say in this matter. but if you're responsible enough to have sex, then you need to be responsible enough to handle the consequences. abortion is a cop out in those situations. if you don't want the baby or can't afford it, put it up for adoption.

[damus]

someone else mentioned ru 486... I was not even quoting you. I always thought it was the morning after pill. Count me as ignorant when it comes to women's prescription drugs...

As far as pharmacies going out of business if they put signs out front like that, I wouldn't say that. Sure, they'd lose a lot of business but they'd probably get a more loyal following of people that feel the same way they do. Still there will be others who don't care enough to be inconvenienced by changing pharmacies and/or going farther away. There probably should be some sort of act of publicly notifying what prescriptions aren't filled, if the pharmacist doesn't want to sell the drug to an individual it only makes sense.

As for the ethics argument; why shouldn't a doctor be allowed to have a sense of ethics? Back in the day doctors used to routinely prescribe cocaine. Another common remedy for certain ailments was for the doctor to pleasure the female patient sexually. Sure this was before the FDA and I agree we need it, but even today there are mess-ups. Cox-2 inhibitors, anyone? Again with the abortion thing, it's a civil rights issue. Whether you agree or not people should be allowed to voice their conscience, even if that means you require them to recommend any doctors that might do what they won't. With a code of ethics that takes away the doctor's conscience you are taking a bit from their soul.

As for separation from church and state. I believe it's "congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof". From a religious argument it looks like your argument would force a person to choose (in what should be as free a society as possible) between his religion, which is guaranteed under the constitution, and becoming a doctor or pharmacist that practices outside the confines of the scripture. This isn't the government forcing or encouraging doctors and pharmacists to deny treatment on religious grounds, it would only be allowing them to follow their religion which is the very essence of what the first amendment was intended to do. Don't go to a christian or muslim fundamentalist doctor or hospital if they are known to be fundamentally against what you are looking to get. That should be the way it is.

[jcrc]

i'm not talking about cyclical unemployment. i'm talking solely about (pulling out my econ book) structural unemployment. there's a poor match because many have skills above and beyond what jobs there are available, yet they're willing to work those jobs. however, when you see people not get these jobs because they're "over qualified" what are they supposed to do? sit around and wait?

if you're not suggesting a free for all, then what are you suggesting? you have yet to make any good suggestions for how we should deal with this problem. i'm throwing stuff out and you're shooting it down without any other suggestions. so unless you're that heartless that you think that the only way is for them to help themselves, what do you suggest? our current system obviously isn't working. it's abused by many who don't need it preventing those who do from getting assistance. other than that, what can we do? those who receive assistance generally don't have health care. what are they to do? remain sick? get the minimal care at hospitals, care that you pay for in your insurance premiums? i am honestly curious what you have in mind.

You need to re-visit your econ book. Structural unemployment is not when people are over qualified, but when people are under qualified or un-employable. For your information, the current unemployment rate stands at about 5%, which many economists including Greenspan think is at or very close to the natural rate of unemployment (NAIRU). If you believe in the NAIRU theory, and I do, then government will not be able to find job for the structural unemployed. What the government can do is provide training or loan guarantee so that they can get a marketable skill, and we already have programs for that.

What do I have in mind? I'd address the cause of poverty rather than treat the symptoms of it. The root cause of perpetual poverty, as HartfordTycoon put it, is the breakdown of family structure, and no amount of government programs can change that, the change has to come from the community and from the individual. The society's safety net is there for emergency and for those physically and mentally not capable of taking care of themselves, not for people to live on in lieu of a job. When I first moved to Hartford, I befriended a person who is black, he lived off Main Street, not in the worst part of town, but ghetto nevertheless. He was unemployed, and he was behind on his rent. Everyday he put clean and professional looking clothes on and went to the library to use the internet to search for a job. He then came by my shop and do some odd jobs and I suspect the coffee and muffin I gave him is all he had to eat that day. This went on for about 9 months, then all of sudden he stopped coming in. You know why? Because he got a job.

[JimSawhill]

With more millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, that would mean more rich made not inherited their wealth. No? there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support means do not presume they made it all by themselves, rather society played a role contributing to their success. Where does it say most rich inherited it?

How does some get screwed for their hard work? You will need to explain this to me.

jcrc:

I guess some people do think that wealth is a Zero sum gain -- if person A makes $$, person B gets less $$. Happily, it is not that way, if Person A makes $$$ Person B can see what hard work does and makes $$, too.

Jim S

They work day in day out getting all the o/t they can get ... at minimum wage or close to it. They think like a poor person.

If they are working OT, and still not getting ahead -- they should look for a new job that'll pay them -- if they have to move to get ahead -- MOVE!! You don't have to be poor!

[HartfordTycoon]

jcrc:

I guess some people do think that wealth is a Zero sum gain -- if person A makes $$, person B gets less $$. Happily, it is not that way, if Person A makes $$$ Person B can see what hard work does and makes $$, too.

Jim S

No, it's not zero sum. But the way I see it, if person A has said amount of money person B can certainly work hard to get to that point. I guess my point is when persons A,B, & C have 80% of the available funds and do everything they can do to hold onto it then the persons D through Z are fighting for 20% of what's left. Does this not lead to conflict. Especially when you have excessive protections in place for A,B, & C and not nearly the same protections for D through Z. Really what's encouraged is for persons D through Z to borrow money from A,B,C and work for the rest of your life to pay them back.

I am not an economist or expert. These are the, not even formally made up, opinions of HartfordTycoon. Thank you.

Jim S

If they are working OT, and still not getting ahead -- they should look for a new job that'll pay them -- if they have to move to get ahead -- MOVE!! You don't have to be poor!

I don't neccesarily agree with that. What's your definition of poor? I know some people who I think it would be impossible, without pure dumb luck, to get to a level of wealth acceptable for myself. Granted I am not or even want to be close to poor. What advice do you have for people who have already made their mistakes and paid for them? The ex cons with felony convictions. How do they go about getting a good job and not being poor? I am not being sarcastic. I really don't know what to tell people. Maybe you guys do.

[JimSawhill]

i think you have a very different view of those living in poverty than i do. i also think you should try to take a walk through some of the poverty-stricken neighborhoods in this country. you might be surprised as to what you see.

most people in poverty, while they might have a car and tv, rent their homes and definitely do not have boats.

Runaway Jim:

I'm not sure of what you said about the poor NOT having boats, but you are wrong. I was in the boat business in CT in the 1980s, and poor people used to come in a buy used boats for fishing or family time. I knew one minority family in East Hartford who started with an old used 17' boat i sold to him for $750, 2 years later he bought a bigger used boat. He was poor but he loved being with his famil on the water. 3 years later, he bought a new boat.

that's not what i said. i said that certain pharmacists, not the pharmacy itself, but a pharmacist at the pharmacy decided that it was against their religion to provide emergency contraception (different from RU486, the abortion pill). while the pharmacy usually carries the drug, the individual pharmacist told customers that they can't fill the prescription because of religious reasons. a pharmacist does not have the right to do this, a pharmacy does have the right to not carry a drug, but they need to make it known that they don't. the pharmacy also should be required to make known any policy they have allowing their pharmacists to arbitrarily deny prescriptions.

Excuse me --

If a pharacist doesn't want to sell some that to him is IMMORAL, and his chain (Walgreen's, CVS, RiteAid, etc.) is ok with it, then he shouldn't lose his license. It is his right -- and the chain's right to make. Should I tell people not to listen to Air America? No, I don't listen to it, but if want to listen to it (and hear BUSH stole the election and Bush lied) you can.

I believe in RIGHTS!!

Jim S

[HartfordTycoon]

Excuse me --

If a pharacist doesn't want to sell some that to him is IMMORAL, and his chain (Walgreen's, CVS, RiteAid, etc.) is ok with it, then he shouldn't lose his license. It is his right -- and the chain's right to make. Should I tell people not to listen to Air America? No, I don't listen to it, but if want to listen to it (and hear BUSH stole the election and Bush lied) you can.

I believe in RIGHTS!!

Jim S

I don't know. If you go to a CVS to buy something that CVS sells I think they should have to sell it to you. Consumers have RIGHTS too. That could be the only pharmacy within a reasonable distance to you. That shouldn't mean you have less of a right to obtain medication then someone who lives near a CVS with a different pharmacist.

[JimSawhill]

As a matter of fact yes, what I made is my, you think I work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for jolly? As far as should I or should I not help others, it is my affair and none of your or anyone else's business. If you don't think your paycheck is yours, then pass some my way. I have never said there is a need for poor people, I have said there is a need for self reliance. With our progressive taxation income tax I am not sure what break the rich are getting. As far as if the economy is top down driven or bottom up driven, what do you think? Who do you think create the wealth of this nation? I have my own idea, but since you have already stereotyped me as one who subscribe to Reagonomic, I'd like to hear your point of view first.

I don't know what programs you are referring to. If there is one common theme with the three situations I mentioned it is we all need money. Now where are the programs where we can get free money? If it is perfectly acceptable to provide some people with free healthcare, then why not provide me with some free money?

What it really comes down to is this, what to do with able body poor that are in perpetual poverty? And is there way to get them out of it? If free healthcare is the answer, then maybe it is a worhwhile investment the rest of us are willing to consider. But it is not. Nothing in life is free, we all have to make money the old fashion way, we have to earn it.

jrcr:

BRAVO! The Rich aren't getting any BREAKS, thou -- UNLESS you are one of the RICH in the US Senate -- like Mark Dayton, Jay Rockefeller, Teddy 'the swimmer and the MURDERER) Kennedy, Maria Cantwell, Diane Fienstien, Barbara Boxer, and Hebert Kohl - amongst other liberals. The laws for TAXPAYERS aren't for them -- they got TRUST FUNDS.

What we need is the FAIR TAX.

[JimSawhill]

No we don't. Many if not most rich people inherit their fortunes. Many of those assets date back to when America was not a free society for all. That's the real issue. Many people inherit great wealth that dates to a time when others had no possibility of attaining it and many people inherit the poverty of the legacy of oppression and discrimination. That's the issue. That at one point the government had it set up to be completely tilted towards white men. It's like a race, at least to many such as myself whose family have been here for hundreds of years, and we have already been lapped countless times. We will never catch up, but the government must have a hand in fixing those inequalities that it had a hand in creating. I can't really speak for immigrants, but I know for a fact that most blacks would be better of if we had been treated equally since day one. (even though we most likely would not have been here if that was the case) But this is not only a race issue. There where many poor whites who never had a chance back in the day. Society was so class based that class mobility was extremely rare. So really everyone got screwed while the rich got richer and lazier for centuries. Now the playing field is more even, but 10% of the population already control 90% of the resources. Do you think that lucky 10% is trying to give up anything? I don't. So they will need to be forced. It may sound fukced up, but hey. Things have been fukced up forever. Why stop now?

Tycoon:

My GOD!! Most Millionaires today aren't from the days of old. They is a book -- I think the Hartford Public Library has it -- called 'The Millionaire Next Door'. The Millionaires of today got it from opening businesses, risking their CAPITAL to see if they can make it in business.

Jim

Most millionaires are self made. I'm not certain the actual percentage among billionaires, but when you look at the top billionaires in America you have Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, Michael Dell and others among "self made". On the other side you have the Waltons.

Some people, like Trump, were born with money and did well. The way people become wealthy is typically through hard work and frugalness. Being poor or poor relative to their dreams is a good motivator. Living above your means is a way to never get rich.

damus:

Sam Walton was self made. He opened his store in 1963. Until he died he drove his old Ford pick up from 1965.

Jim