The W
Views: 99952771
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.10.07 0817
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Jim Jeffords Worst Nightmare and General Election Thoughts
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(1982 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (60 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 549/4700
EXP: 21583602
For next: 253060

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#21 Posted on 6.11.02 1837.14
Reposted on: 6.11.09 1846.13
Only because it's fun to try to run this kind of(and I wouldn't want to disappoint OFB)

The Democratic platform is against any for the illegal repudiation of the 2nd Amendment, for the slaughter of unborn children on command, for forced birth control, against doing anything about drugs, in favor of senseless social spending, for artificially inflation through raising the minimum wage, for anytime anywhere marijuana, against legal gambling, for suicide on demand, against drug treatment, pro radical labor, anti-religion, for legalized racism, sexism and genderism through "affirmative action" and their economic policies only benefit the rich and they're bought and sold by the trial lawyers. Not to mention the fact that they tried to fix a Presidential election and Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, Kweisi Mfume, The Kennedys, Hollywood and the media are among their members.



Now I know that not all of that is true of all Democrats(though they are some who are fucking loony tunes, like on the GOP side). Nor does every Republican fall under OFB's description(I'm pro gambling, pro-choice to a certain extent, and think the drug war has been a disaster).
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 734/2108
EXP: 6615764
For next: 34926

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#22 Posted on 6.11.02 2207.56
Reposted on: 6.11.09 2214.25
and as attorney general he is supposed to look beyond partisan politics?

Since when are referendums passed by the citizens of a state "partisan politics?"

And Republicans are not about freezing the minimum wage for all time. Quite frankly, Democrats tend to go overboard in raising it. If you raise it too high, labor costs too much and either A)Jobs go away, or B) things you buy cost more. It is simple economics. Letting the minimum wage rise in step with inflation is the best way to go, or else your economy gets torn to shreds.

This is my favorite example of the GOP's "if you just say it enough times with enough confidence, it's true" philosophy. Check out the stats please.

Click Here

Here is the history of the minimum wage adjusted for inflation. You'll notice that in 1968 this peaked.

Click Here

Here is a graph of the history of the Unemployment rate. You'll notice this hit rock bottom in 1969 (giving enough time for that minimum wage increase to kick in). You'll also notice that while unemployment was falling during the 50s, the minimum wage was rising. And yup, as the unemployment rate was rising during the 70s and early 80s, the minimum wage was falling.

But what about inflation? Well Click Here

As you'll see here, starting in the early 70s and last through the mid 80, inflation is well above every other time in U.S. history. All while the minimum wage (in real dollars) is falling.

However, after all of this I think I actually agree with Pool-Boy. I'd set the minimum wage at whatever hourly rate would equal the poverty rate for 1 erson (not a family of 4, if you're making minimum wage keep your willy in your pants dummy) divided by a 40 hour week, and then let it rise with inflation (like Social Security).

Of course, the "poverty rate" is an utter joke, but that's a whole other thread.

Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 183/561
EXP: 891538
For next: 55786

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 82 days
Last activity: 82 days
#23 Posted on 6.11.02 2332.31
Reposted on: 6.11.09 2332.47
OK, now that the GOP has total DOMINATION can I please get a freaking tax cut? With the goog guys in office I better stop being the victim of payroll theft pretty darn soon.

I know 43 is keen on kicking Saddam outta Iraq, but please please PLEASE get me a tax cut first.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 186/6335
EXP: 33456201
For next: 663897

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 days
#24 Posted on 7.11.02 0028.49
Reposted on: 7.11.09 0029.02
Holy Crap, I aks OFB what he disliked about the GOP, and now we got it flying all over!

Lets see, I am:

For Balistic Fingerprinting

For Abortion (since I am a guy, not my problem, let the ladies decide who can have one and who cant)

Against Legalized Marajuana (Medicinal, yes, recreational, no)

For a flat tax (why is a rich mans dollar worth more than a poor mans dollar? 25% of each, and every persons dollar seems like a fair contribution to the government to help it provide for its people)

Pro Military. Star Wars stuff would be great, IF IT WORKED. But since it doesnt work correctly, should we not at least TRY to get it to, before scrapping it all together?)

Anti Union- Nothing but organized crime. I dont mean Sapranos style either. "Negotiating a contract" is nothing but EXTORTION.

For Welfare reform, which I give clinton credit, he DID do that like he said he would.

Now convinced GWB DID steal the election. None of the news channels (even CNN) showed all the underhanded crap they did in Florida, BEFORE the elections. (Read: Stupid White Men" By Michael Moore for a full explanation)

For Legalized Gambling, but lets not kid ourselves and say it has to be "on a river boat" or "On a reservation"


Did I leave anything out?
What would that make me? Democrat? Republican? Libretarian? I always indentified more with Republicans more, so I always thought of myself as one.





kazhayashi81
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 256/677
EXP: 1183054
For next: 50823

Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Since last post: 2701 days
Last activity: 2652 days
AIM:  
#25 Posted on 7.11.02 0040.04
Reposted on: 7.11.09 0041.09

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Why shouldn't the people who can afford to pay higher taxes pay the higher taxes? I feel very sorry for the Julia Roberts of the world, but it seems a little more fair to me than lowering taxes for the wealthy and fleecing welfare mothers, but that's just my crazy, bleeding-heart liberalism shining through again


You get a large portion of the population with no tax burden. Said large portion suddenly becomes mindless sheep whose sole voting responsibility is to ensure that they never have to have a tax burden again. At the same time, you tax the SHIT out of the rich, because, truthfully, successful people who work hard to get there by putting in more hours, more willpower, and more individual thought don't generally vote Democrat anyways. So you can make them the sole burden-bearers of the mindless idiots who barely work and expect the government to pay for everything. Hence, you create a system that can't be reversed.

It's bottom line fucking STUPID to punish people for working harder than the sheep and succeeding.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 550/4700
EXP: 21583602
For next: 253060

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#26 Posted on 7.11.02 0548.03
Reposted on: 7.11.09 0554.42
There are only two things my fellow Republican StaggerLee brought up that I can take to task


    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    For Balistic Fingerprinting


Useless. You can file the barrel down. You can replace the barrel. Does nothing for the guns(legal and illegal) already in circulation. Does nothing but create a database for new gun owners.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    (Read: Stupid White Men" By Michael Moore for a full explanation


Michael Moore could tell me the sky was blue and I still wouldn't believe him until I saw it for myself. Not saying that there were no shennaigans going on for both sides, but there would have to be a better example than that schmuck.

(edited by Grimis on 7.11.02 0649)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 684/3029
EXP: 11258364
For next: 213081

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 12 days
AIM:  
#27 Posted on 7.11.02 0833.39
Reposted on: 7.11.09 0834.21

    Originally posted by kazhayashi81
    It's bottom line fucking STUPID to punish people for working harder than the sheep and succeeding.


You think that a woman waiting tables or a guy stocking shelves doesn't work harder than a guy who sits at a desk and signs papers all day or a guy who plays baseball for a living?
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1128/3273
EXP: 12776405
For next: 314948

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 198 days
Last activity: 198 days
#28 Posted on 7.11.02 0941.33
Reposted on: 7.11.09 0941.44

    Originally posted by Grimis
    There are only two things my fellow Republican StaggerLee brought up that I can take to task


      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      For Balistic Fingerprinting


    Useless. You can file the barrel down. You can replace the barrel. Does nothing for the guns(legal and illegal) already in circulation. Does nothing but create a database for new gun owners.

    (edited by Grimis on 7.11.02 0649)



Even if this was true, and Ballistic Fingerprinting never helped solve one crime, what rights are being infringed upon by having a database of gun owners?

-Jag
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 367/1759
EXP: 4929901
For next: 62969

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on 7.11.02 1230.54
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1236.12

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard

      Originally posted by kazhayashi81
      It's bottom line fucking STUPID to punish people for working harder than the sheep and succeeding.


    You think that a woman waiting tables or a guy stocking shelves doesn't work harder than a guy who sits at a desk and signs papers all day or a guy who plays baseball for a living?

]
SIGH... sports figures are not what he is talking about. I think we can all agree that they have it easy.
But a person who stocks shelves vs a doctor? A lawyer? Anyone in that salary range? The answer is HELL YES.
The stock-boy (and I have been one) who does not work to better his position in life does not work nearly as hard as the person who makes 6 figures (in general). Sure, day to day, he probably works about his hard. But that is where it stops. The person who you might call "rich" worked harder and longer outside of his said job description to do what he could to make more money, to be better off. For some, it is college. For some, it is looking for an opportunity and striking while the iron is hot. For some, it is running your own buisness.
The fact is, that said stockboy does not have to be a stockboy his whole life, he chooses to be. And yes, to me, that means he does not work as hard as someone who worked for something better.
It has nothing to do with luck (in some, rare cases, it does, but as a general rule, luck has nothing to do with it). We should not punish those who work hard to better themselves, because quite honestly they help our society more than the stockboy does. Who are the biggest contributers to charitible causes (no matter the reason)? Who invests their money to create jobs? Who pays the lion's share of taxes, which in turn pays for our state-services? That is the REASON we are taxed, and if the government has too much money, why shouldn't these people be allowed to have their money back?
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 736/2108
EXP: 6615764
For next: 34926

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#30 Posted on 7.11.02 1330.21
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1331.20
The poorer people are, the larger percentage of their income they contribute toward charity. As for the "people who are rich work harder" thing, that is pretty much the core of the GOP philosophy. If this were the 50s still, I'd probably agree with you. Even for the stockboy vs. doctor example (lawyer I'm gonna leave alone, it's for the best), maybe you can make an arguement that the Doctor who makes 200 grand, has worked 10x harder than the stockboy that makes 20 grand. And I'm not in favor of raising taxes on that 200 grand/year doctor at all. The upper-middle professional class is a great asset to this country, and the fact that our system offers our upper-middle class professionals a very comfortable living has definitely led to a lot of progress and upward-mobility in this country.

However, you are just never going to convince me that the CEO who wrecks his company and then makes 40 million a year works a thousand times harder, or does 1000 times more for society than the teacher who makes 40,000 a year. It's these kind of ridiculous salaries (baseball players among them) where I think that hard work is irrelevant, and connections is everything. These are the folks that I (and most Democrats) advocate raising taxes on, not the doctor, or scientist, or small-businessman.

The whole "rich work harder than the poor" is another example of the "say it enough times with enough confidence and it's true" philosophy of the GOP. And it's so ridiculous. Does anyone, and that includes Karl Rove, believe that if George W. Bush was George W. Smith that he'd be anything other than travelling salesman? Please. He, like so many other people of the "the rich work SOOOOO hard" actually believe that everyone has the same opportunites as the President's kid.

Now, I'd buy this arguement if this country did a few things:

1) outlawed "legacy" admissions at colleges. I.e., not more "Daddy went there so I get to go too even though I'm an idiot" people. Like W.

2) Gave the top 10% of all high school graduates admission and a free ride to the top state university.

3) implemented my aforementioned minimum wage raise to the poverty level for a 40-hour week for one person.

4) Cut the income tax across the board. Then tax all unearned income - investments, inheritance, gifts, anything other than wage or business income - at three times the rate of the income tax. Then scale it up until you have 90% rate above, say 10 million or so. However, all charity contributions would be exempt, and businesses could be exempt if sold to their workers.

Now, REAL fans of the "rich work harder" school should love this. Inherting money from daddy isn't "rewarding hard work," other than in the fantasy world the republican elite lives in. Neither is any unearned income. But cutting income taxes is. So they should love trading in an unearned income tax hike for an earned income tax cut. Add in exemption of charity contributions too, as that lets the rich choose what charity, faith based or whatever, to give their money too instead of Uncle Sam. The GOP usually loves this stuff. And before you give me "we want ALL the taxes eliminated" bullshit, please get a reality check and notice that even in the biggest government-shrinking Republican administration would have to have SOME taxes. So why not make those taxes on unearned income instead of earned income? I'll trade you a 12% flat tax for a 90% inheritance tax above $500,000 and a 90% gift tax above $1000/year any day.

Now of course, Republicans would never go for this, because the "rich work harder" thing is all bullshit. That's just code for "you're kid should work harder. My kid, of course, should just get all the advantages by virtue of being born to me. Oh but don't worry, we'll have him work a couple summers in the mailroom to teach him the value of "hard work" before he goes to Yale becuase I gave the school 20 million dollars and we bail him out of his DUI conviction because I play at the country club with the judge."
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 375/1759
EXP: 4929901
For next: 62969

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#31 Posted on 7.11.02 1348.28
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1348.55
You do raise some valid points, Moe, but I think you do go a lttle overboard. be I AGREE with you that a CEO who earns that much money and wrecks his company does not deserve any consideration, but for that one- there are 20 or more who have worked HARD AS HELL for many, many years to get where they are, and work hard every day, honestly, to maker their company as successful as possible.
Just like for every 20 or so hardworking men and women on unemployment, struggling to find a job, there is one lazy ass who is bucking the system for a free buck.
My point is that you can't take the few noticable, corrupt people and classify a whole group by their behavior. For every "country club brat" there are dozens of men and women who EARNED their fortunes through hard work and sacrifice.
I am not saying the stockboy does not work hard. I am saying that he does not go above and beyond, or he would not be a stockboy anymore. And by taxing the hell out of people with more money, you are punishing that drive.
As far as "say it enough times, it is true"- I think both parties have been guilty of that. However, I think you should step back from the "Ignore the argument and it goes away" political style and address the issue at hand on its merits, instead of dismissing it offhand as "Republican drivel, just because you, on the surface, disagree with it. Think outside of the box for a minute!
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 738/2108
EXP: 6615764
For next: 34926

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#32 Posted on 7.11.02 1418.13
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1418.20
However, I think you should step back from the "Ignore the argument and it goes away" political style and address the issue at hand on its merits, instead of dismissing it offhand as "Republican drivel, just because you, on the surface, disagree with it. Think outside of the box for a minute!

I gave you four specific proposals that, I'd say, are "outside the box." In essence, truely competitive college admissions, a lowering of taxes on earned income across the board, and a raining of taxes on unearned income. Whether the ration is 1 trust-fund brat to 20 Horatio Algeirs or 20 Brats to 1 Horatio, those are idea that would reward hard work, and discourage folks who don't but have been getting a free ride anyway. What more do you want?



Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 377/1759
EXP: 4929901
For next: 62969

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on 7.11.02 1424.11
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1427.27
All those sound well and good, but for one-
How do you define "unearned income?" Inheritance? it is already taxed TWICE... once when it is earned, and once when it passes on to an heir. How many more times to you want to tax that? Investments? You can't jack the tax up too high on that because you take away any advantage of investing in the first place. It is taxed now... what more do you want? And have you ever heard of capital gains taxes? If you make it so that a person has no benefit from investing, they won't. And then "said stockboy" won't have a job, because there is no money in the market.
As far as college admissions go- that kind of sounds like the state's responsibility to me. Why does the FEDRAL government need to be involved with that? Isn't education a local issue?

(edited by Pool-Boy on 7.11.02 1233)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 556/4700
EXP: 21583602
For next: 253060

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#34 Posted on 7.11.02 1424.38
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1427.36
I'm not going to throw baseball players or CEOs under the bus for making a shitload of money. Remember, somebody has to be willing to pay them that much...


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Now, I'd buy this arguement if this country did a few things:

    1) outlawed "legacy" admissions at colleges. I.e., not more "Daddy went there so I get to go too even though I'm an idiot" people. Like W.



For public schools sure? Private institutions are by their very nature private. So this would be an illogical extension of government power.


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    2) Gave the top 10% of all high school graduates admission and a free ride to the top state university.


How about to any state university? Then you don't have 10% of the student body trying to go to Berkley for example. That would crowd out everybody else. I would also still tie some sort of test score into that admission process because, yes Virgnia, some public schools are harder than others. And finally, then we have to remove all vestiges of all vestiges of affirmative action from the public systems.


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    3) implemented my aforementioned minimum wage raise to the poverty level for a 40-hour week for one person.


I don't think so.


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    4) Cut the income tax across the board. Then tax all unearned income - investments, inheritance, gifts, anything other than wage or business income - at three times the rate of the income tax. Then scale it up until you have 90% rate above, say 10 million or so. However, all charity contributions would be exempt, and businesses could be exempt if sold to their workers.Now, REAL fans of the "rich work harder" school should love this. Inherting money from daddy isn't "rewarding hard work," other than in the fantasy world the republican elite lives in. Neither is any unearned income. But cutting income taxes is. So they should love trading in an unearned income tax hike for an earned income tax cut. Add in exemption of charity contributions too, as that lets the rich choose what charity, faith based or whatever, to give their money too instead of Uncle Sam. The GOP usually loves this stuff. And before you give me "we want ALL the taxes eliminated" bullshit, please get a reality check and notice that even in the biggest government-shrinking Republican administration would have to have SOME taxes. So why not make those taxes on unearned income instead of earned income? I'll trade you a 12% flat tax for a 90% inheritance tax above $500,000 and a 90% gift tax above $1000/year any day.

    Now of course, Republicans would never go for this, because the "rich work harder" thing is all bullshit. That's just code for "you're kid should work harder. My kid, of course, should just get all the advantages by virtue of being born to me. Oh but don't worry, we'll have him work a couple summers in the mailroom to teach him the value of "hard work" before he goes to Yale becuase I gave the school 20 million dollars and we bail him out of his DUI conviction because I play at the country club with the judge."



You had me until the tax the investments stuff. So somebody who invests their money and makes a return is not working for it? They just happen upon it one day? Sure, some people get a great tip and turn it intil $200 million(I'm looking at the champion of the poor that is DNC Chair Terry McAullife). But regardless of if you call it work or not, your plan discriminates against anybody middle class or higher.

There are only two types of fair taxation:
1. A flat income tax.(NO loopholes)
2. No income tax, but with a national consumption tax with non-taxable status on certain items necessary for basic subsitance(certain foods, clothes, etc).
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 835/7534
EXP: 43740366
For next: 561396

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 479 days
Last activity: 479 days
#35 Posted on 7.11.02 1447.31
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1447.52
So, its bad that baseball players make tons of money. Why does it occur: Because of there union. Thus, wanting ballplayers to lose money is an attack on the union workers of the Democratic Party.
Back to the original point of the thread: How far back in the boiler room will Jim Jeffords office be placed?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 557/4700
EXP: 21583602
For next: 253060

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#36 Posted on 7.11.02 1537.53
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1540.09

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    So, its bad that baseball players make tons of money. Why does it occur: Because of there union. Thus, wanting ballplayers to lose money is an attack on the union workers of the Democratic Party.
    Back to the original point of the thread: How far back in the boiler room will Jim Jeffords office be placed?



Anacostia...
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 1206/6012
EXP: 31959905
For next: 507622

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#37 Posted on 7.11.02 1542.39
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1546.35

    Here is the history of the minimum wage adjusted for inflation. You'll notice that in 1968 this peaked.

    Click Here

    Here is a graph of the history of the Unemployment rate. You'll notice this hit rock bottom in 1969 (giving enough time for that minimum wage increase to kick in). You'll also notice that while unemployment was falling during the 50s, the minimum wage was rising. And yup, as the unemployment rate was rising during the 70s and early 80s, the minimum wage was falling.

    But what about inflation? Well Click Here


Not to nitpick, but since inflation is a factor in both charts, you would necessarily ALWAYS see an inverse relation between the rate of inflation and the value of minimum wage unless it was tied to a factor of inflation (1x, 2x, etc).

You are really comparing the same number, just on two different charts.

Its like saying the value of a dollar relative to inflation went down, and during the same period inflation went up! It's the same thing... By showing the adjusted for inflation minimum wage contrasted to the inflation rate, you are really giving the appearance of double the effect of inflation.

Anyway, it's not too important, but I thought I should point it out.
Fletch
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 83/89
EXP: 56204
For next: 2147

Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4366 days
Last activity: 4363 days
#38 Posted on 7.11.02 1712.48
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1713.43

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I am not saying the stockboy does not work hard. I am saying that he does not go above and beyond, or he would not be a stockboy anymore. And by taxing the hell out of people with more money, you are punishing that drive.


Good point. Stock boys are ALL stock boys because they are lazy-ass mother-fuckers.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    My point is that you can't take the few noticable, corrupt people and classify a whole group by their behavior.


Hey... wait a minute... but stockboys... but you said... Oh. I get it.

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 383/1759
EXP: 4929901
For next: 62969

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#39 Posted on 7.11.02 1716.05
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1721.00
Way to come in late Fletch A stockboy was merely an example. The accusation was that a stockboy works as hard as any rich person, and I was trying to illustrate that the hard work done ON the job is not the same as the extra work you put in to not be a stockboy anymore.
If someone is "stockboy for life" that is their choice...with hard work and sacrifice, they would not have to be a stockboy anymore!
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 1/810
EXP: 1523519
For next: 54036

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 1 day
#40 Posted on 7.11.02 1730.07
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1731.49
I hate to enter the debate late, but how hard you work does not necessarily have anything to do with your income. That depends solely on how much revenue you can generate for either yourself or for someone else. When a stockboy can fill an arena full of ticket buying customers who are there to watch him (or her) stock shelves, then they will make as much as any professional athlete. I don't think lawyers, doctors or athletes work any harder than anyone else, but they do generate more revenue therefore they earn more money.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Al Qaeda and Everyone else
Next thread: Here we go again. Again.
Previous thread: Tactics like these....
(1982 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Jim Jeffords Worst Nightmare and General Election ThoughtsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.197 seconds.