I think we're saying pretty much the same thing - the words just got in the way. Definition of terms seemed to be missing from my post.
I didn't mean my post as a slam of inexpensive gear; I did mean to slam cheap (shoddy) gear. I really do think that, in most things, you get what you pay for. You need to be sure, however, that you need what you get. That Rolex watch may well last longer than your Timex - but if all you need to do is tell time, the Timex is what you need. (When I worked construction and in a warehouse in college, I used the cheapest watch I could find because it was always getting banged around - and rewarded myself with a Timex when I graduated; it served me well the whole time I was in the Air Force. Later, I needed a day-and-date function, so I spent a little more. The last watch I bought cost maybe $150 - of course, I can also use it to check email and make phone calls, so that may not be a completely valid example.
Moving the example to camping gear, I spent the first twenty years of my hiking life using inexpensive gear - which I quickly upgraded to when my first set of cheap gear lasted about two trips. My $25 American Camper e-frame pack lost a weld on its third weekend; the packbag had already busted a zipper the previous trip. The infamous 3/8 inch blue foam pad ($3) never was warm. And so on. But that cheap gear did teach me a lot, quickly, about what to look for. I upgraded to inexpensive gear: a Camp Trails pack, and a Christmas wish for a Thermarest self-inflater (when they first came out, with the metal valve.) I envied the guys with the North Face packs and sleeping bags (again, the original North Face, not the reincarnation) - that was the expensive stuff I couldn't afford, but lusted after. The inexpensive gear worked fine for a lot of years. I use better stuff now, but that's partly because the mortgage is paid, the kids are self-supporting, and I don't indulge myself with other vices (like boats or motorcycles.) Does that gear make the trips more fun? No; I've never taken a trip I haven't fully enjoyed - nor have I ever gotten soaked or frozen (a function of knowledge and experience, not just gear quality.). Playing with the better gear is fun, but that's a different fun than the hiking and sleeping outdoors.
"Light, cheap, and warm - pick two" is still true - and again, not always a function of cost. I don't consider the bag you describe to be cheap. Inexpensive, yes, but not shoddy. There are a number of good brands that are reasonably inexpensive (Kelty, REI, And Campmor's house brands all leap to mind.) Warm is a function of loft, be it down, synthetic, or foam (remember the open-cell foam bags that were briefly popular in the 80's?) Which brings us to light - which is also a relative term. My pound and a half down bag may be lighter than your two and a half pound bag (am I close?) - but, again, they're both light enough not to be burdensome. (My first bag, which lasted until the glorious Christmas of 1987, when everyone went together to surprise me with a North Face Cat's Meow, was the Coleman Peak 1 Gray Fox, at just over 3 pounds.) I never minded carrying the heavier bag. I did mind carrying the cheap, hoodless, rectangular piece of no-name junk I got the local Ayr Way that was heavy, cold, and jammed the zipper relentlessly.
But, when comparing a broad range of bags, "light, inexpensive, warm - you can have two" is a good shorthand way to make the cost/benefit analysis, in a rough-and-ready kind of way, to reach the balance that works for you. ("light enough, warm enough, inexpensive enough - you can have all three.") I also think "light, cheap, and warm" is a mantra most applicable to those trying to move toward ultralight gear. And, as I've said before, even though I fit into the "go light" mentality, I don't expect others to; it's one way to go backpacking, but certainly not the only valid way.
And, usually, if you can't (or don't want to) buy the lightest stuff available, you can still get a light pack just by refining your style and definition of "necessity" to minimize the number of things you're taking. Back in the old days, when we were all using inexpensive gear, my pack would consistently be five or ten pounds lighter than my buddies' packs simply because I didn't carry two liters of water when the creeks were only two miles apart, and I developed a menu that required me to take only one pot instead of the two pots, a fry pan, plate, and bowl they were all carrying. I found it easier to keep track of my single spoon than to carry a backup spoon.
Regarding WalMart gear: I took a drive to my local WalMart this evening, and couldn't find the bag mentioned in the post. The bags I did find were cheap: not a hood in sight, probably fine for sleepovers, Scout summer camp, and car camping in July, but not suitable for backpacking. The same with the tents, and I couldn't even find a framed pack (internal or external.) I have seen halfway decent packs and passibly adequate tents (if it doesn't actually rain) at a WalMart in southeastern Ohio. Is it possible that Walmarts that serve areas where there are more trails carry a better variety and quality of camping gear than stores in other areas?
To summarize, I agree fully with your advice about not letting gear quality keep you from getting out there. I think you can find decent quality, inexpensive, not-overly-heavy gear that will let you make those early trips. We all make the compromises we need to; my set of choices might mean I carry a thirty pound pack while you carry only twenty five - but if we go on a trip together, we'll both have a ball.