|
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0800, Hawke
wrote: On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Deucalion wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:34:33 -0800, Gunner wrote: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chakolate wrote: "Joan F wrote in : He says he would patch up any holes in the safey net but he endorsed Cantor's budget which slashes Medicaid and other programs like food stamps. I don't think existing services are all that good, otherwise there would not be so many homeless. I hate it when people talk about the safety net as though it's a solution to poverty. We can spend a lot of dollars 'helping' people, but the real low-cost solution is to make sure they become useful members of society. Chak The War on Poverty was declared in 1964...and either we have a genious for an enemy..or our generals are utter ****wits. And I belive the latter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty 48 years we have been fighting that SOB..and we are losing ..and losing badly. One would think its time to change generals and battle plans..no? The war on drugs actually began in the early 20th century and we see how well that has been going. In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent lifestyle to everybody? After 100 years it seem clear that in capitalism you have a relatively small number of people who get a very large slice of the economic pie and a very large number of people who get a very small slice of the pie. So what's that mean? It's good to be in the small percent of folk who have all the assets but life is crappy for most everyone else? And that's the best economic system we can come up with? Obviously it is for the few that are well off but why do the rest put up with it? Hawke So what do you advocate? Hiring poor, uneducated people for jobs that they are not qualified for? Someone who is barely literate as a brain surgeon? I suggest that it would be far more beneficial to research why these "poor" are not taking jobs? It seems very strange that the U.S. in inundated with Mexicans taking unskilled, low paid work while there are so many poor Americans who remain poor. Perhaps instituting a new relief system based on the old WPA concept, that ultimately employed approximately 1/3rd of the nation's unemployed, and paid them a salary for their work, rather than the current programs which essentially pay the poor to remain poor. (Or perhaps that would be cruel and unusual punishment to actually require people to work) cheers, Schweik |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/5/2012 6:17 PM, Schweik wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0800, Hawke wrote: On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Deucalion wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:34:33 -0800, Gunner wrote: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chakolate wrote: "Joan F wrote in : He says he would patch up any holes in the safey net but he endorsed Cantor's budget which slashes Medicaid and other programs like food stamps. I don't think existing services are all that good, otherwise there would not be so many homeless. I hate it when people talk about the safety net as though it's a solution to poverty. We can spend a lot of dollars 'helping' people, but the real low-cost solution is to make sure they become useful members of society. Chak The War on Poverty was declared in 1964...and either we have a genious for an enemy..or our generals are utter ****wits. And I belive the latter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty 48 years we have been fighting that SOB..and we are losing ..and losing badly. One would think its time to change generals and battle plans..no? The war on drugs actually began in the early 20th century and we see how well that has been going. In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent lifestyle to everybody? After 100 years it seem clear that in capitalism you have a relatively small number of people who get a very large slice of the economic pie and a very large number of people who get a very small slice of the pie. So what's that mean? It's good to be in the small percent of folk who have all the assets but life is crappy for most everyone else? And that's the best economic system we can come up with? Obviously it is for the few that are well off but why do the rest put up with it? Hawke So what do you advocate? Hiring poor, uneducated people for jobs that they are not qualified for? Someone who is barely literate as a brain surgeon? I suggest that it would be far more beneficial to research why these "poor" are not taking jobs? It seems very strange that the U.S. in inundated with Mexicans taking unskilled, low paid work while there are so many poor Americans who remain poor. Perhaps instituting a new relief system based on the old WPA concept, that ultimately employed approximately 1/3rd of the nation's unemployed, and paid them a salary for their work, rather than the current programs which essentially pay the poor to remain poor. (Or perhaps that would be cruel and unusual punishment to actually require people to work) cheers, Schweik The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem. I don't know anyone who does but I do know what we're doing isn't going to work so we better start trying some new stuff. The first thing in getting out of the hole is to stop digging. So we need to quit what has gotten us here and start trying new ideas. There are some things we can do but we don't seem to have the political will to do them. The power of the status quo is immense in this country and they will fight to keep things as they are. After all, things are really great here for some people. I don't think they want us to change anything, do you? Hawke |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/6/2012 12:20 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/5/2012 6:17 PM, Schweik wrote: On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0800, Hawke wrote: On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Deucalion wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:34:33 -0800, Gunner wrote: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chakolate wrote: "Joan F wrote in : He says he would patch up any holes in the safey net but he endorsed Cantor's budget which slashes Medicaid and other programs like food stamps. I don't think existing services are all that good, otherwise there would not be so many homeless. I hate it when people talk about the safety net as though it's a solution to poverty. We can spend a lot of dollars 'helping' people, but the real low-cost solution is to make sure they become useful members of society. Chak The War on Poverty was declared in 1964...and either we have a genious for an enemy..or our generals are utter ****wits. And I belive the latter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty 48 years we have been fighting that SOB..and we are losing ..and losing badly. One would think its time to change generals and battle plans..no? The war on drugs actually began in the early 20th century and we see how well that has been going. In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent lifestyle to everybody? After 100 years it seem clear that in capitalism you have a relatively small number of people who get a very large slice of the economic pie and a very large number of people who get a very small slice of the pie. So what's that mean? It's good to be in the small percent of folk who have all the assets but life is crappy for most everyone else? And that's the best economic system we can come up with? Obviously it is for the few that are well off but why do the rest put up with it? Hawke So what do you advocate? Hiring poor, uneducated people for jobs that they are not qualified for? Someone who is barely literate as a brain surgeon? I suggest that it would be far more beneficial to research why these "poor" are not taking jobs? It seems very strange that the U.S. in inundated with Mexicans taking unskilled, low paid work while there are so many poor Americans who remain poor. Perhaps instituting a new relief system based on the old WPA concept, that ultimately employed approximately 1/3rd of the nation's unemployed, and paid them a salary for their work, rather than the current programs which essentially pay the poor to remain poor. (Or perhaps that would be cruel and unusual punishment to actually require people to work) cheers, Schweik The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem. You don't even have an honest and fact-based statement of a problem in the first place. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:20:57 -0800, Hawke
wrote: On 2/5/2012 6:17 PM, Schweik wrote: On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0800, Hawke wrote: On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Deucalion wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:34:33 -0800, Gunner wrote: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chakolate wrote: "Joan F wrote in : He says he would patch up any holes in the safey net but he endorsed Cantor's budget which slashes Medicaid and other programs like food stamps. I don't think existing services are all that good, otherwise there would not be so many homeless. I hate it when people talk about the safety net as though it's a solution to poverty. We can spend a lot of dollars 'helping' people, but the real low-cost solution is to make sure they become useful members of society. Chak The War on Poverty was declared in 1964...and either we have a genious for an enemy..or our generals are utter ****wits. And I belive the latter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty 48 years we have been fighting that SOB..and we are losing ..and losing badly. One would think its time to change generals and battle plans..no? The war on drugs actually began in the early 20th century and we see how well that has been going. In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent lifestyle to everybody? After 100 years it seem clear that in capitalism you have a relatively small number of people who get a very large slice of the economic pie and a very large number of people who get a very small slice of the pie. So what's that mean? It's good to be in the small percent of folk who have all the assets but life is crappy for most everyone else? And that's the best economic system we can come up with? Obviously it is for the few that are well off but why do the rest put up with it? Hawke So what do you advocate? Hiring poor, uneducated people for jobs that they are not qualified for? Someone who is barely literate as a brain surgeon? I suggest that it would be far more beneficial to research why these "poor" are not taking jobs? It seems very strange that the U.S. in inundated with Mexicans taking unskilled, low paid work while there are so many poor Americans who remain poor. Perhaps instituting a new relief system based on the old WPA concept, that ultimately employed approximately 1/3rd of the nation's unemployed, and paid them a salary for their work, rather than the current programs which essentially pay the poor to remain poor. (Or perhaps that would be cruel and unusual punishment to actually require people to work) cheers, Schweik The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem. I don't know anyone who does but I do know what we're doing isn't going to work so we better start trying some new stuff. The first thing in getting out of the hole is to stop digging. So we need to quit what has gotten us here and start trying new ideas. There are some things we can do but we don't seem to have the political will to do them. The power of the status quo is immense in this country and they will fight to keep things as they are. After all, things are really great here for some people. I don't think they want us to change anything, do you? Hawke You are basically correct, I believe, when you say "political will". Certainly a WPA scheme would be easy to implement and in fact the state of Maine has, or had, a provision that the town/city can call for people receiving public assistance to perform work for the city/state and have in the past called out people on the relief rolls to clean snow off sidewalks which is considered to be for the public benefit. A program requiring everyone who is on the relief rolls to fall out at 05:00 and sweep the city's streets would improve the cleanliness of the city as well as, perhaps, impress on some that it is a better decision to get a job. But of course that would ensure that every one of these early morning street sweepers would vote for the "other guy" in the next election and is thus political suicide. cheers, Schweik |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...
i |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/6/2012 6:07 PM, Ignoramus8327 wrote:
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Why? |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
"Schweik" wrote in message You are basically correct, I believe, when you say "political will". Certainly a WPA scheme would be easy to implement and in fact the state of Maine has, or had, a provision that the town/city can call for people receiving public assistance to perform work for the city/state and have in the past called out people on the relief rolls to clean snow off sidewalks which is considered to be for the public benefit. A program requiring everyone who is on the relief rolls to fall out at 05:00 and sweep the city's streets would improve the cleanliness of the city as well as, perhaps, impress on some that it is a better decision to get a job. But of course that would ensure that every one of these early morning street sweepers would vote for the "other guy" in the next election and is thus political suicide. cheers, Schweik I've personally seen both sides of that. The city uses welfare recipients to clean up trash on abandoned lots, which men can do but not single mothers with infants to care for and no RELIABLE friends available to take them. I couldn't believe the mess of spilled food and pet waste some of them raise their kids in. Civilization hasn't taken on everyone. Glad I moved out. That neighborhood was poor because they were obstinately dysfunctional. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
"Ignoramus8327" wrote in message ... Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... i Show me Democrats who try to help them achieve self-sufficiency instead of buying votes by propagating envy, dependency and delusions of entitlement. There are an exceptional few, like Joe Kennedy: http://www.citizensenergy.com/main/Home.html Start with free English lessons for legal Hispanics. The Southeast Asians I worked with didn't need help. My mother volunteered to teach remedial English after she retired, but the only classes they had established were meant for low-performing native speakers. Why don't PBS or Univision offer ESL? I picked up a lot of French and a little Russian (from Vremya) on TV. jsw |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/6/2012 12:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem. You don't even have an honest and fact-based statement of a problem in the first place. That may be but it still puts me way out front of you. Hawke |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/6/2012 6:07 PM, Ignoramus8327 wrote:
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... i You won't get any takers. Hawke |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/6/2012 7:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/6/2012 6:07 PM, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Why? We know you would ask a question like that because we know you only care about yourself. After all, you're a libertarian, aren't you? And that's how they roll. Hawke |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/7/2012 12:03 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/6/2012 12:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote: The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem. You don't even have an honest and fact-based statement of a problem in the first place. That may be but it still puts me way out front of you. Nope - miles behind. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/7/2012 12:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/6/2012 7:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/6/2012 6:07 PM, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Why? We know you would ask a question like that because we know you only care about yourself. No, you know no such thing. What you know is that I don't allow the likes of you to dictate to me how *much* I am to care about others, nor do you get to dictate to me what my response will be. After all, you're a libertarian, aren't you? Yes, I'm proud to say I am. It's the only ethical political philosophy. Conservatism and contemporary illiberal "liberalism" are unethical. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. -- Energy and persistence alter all things. --Benjamin Franklin |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual experience. I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican. -- Ed Huntress |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:47:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Feb 6, 9:07*pm, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... i Me Dan ================== Is that buy, sell or trade? -- Unka' George "Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, but debt is the money of slaves" -Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium" |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual experience. I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican. Nor are you. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:
On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual experience. I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican. Nor are you. You're a moron, Delvin. But if you mean by "Republican" a hateful, bigoted, authoritarian ignoramus, then no, I'm not that kind of Republican. I'm the old kind, like the ones who pushed for welfare reform and gun rights at the same time they supported the Civil Rights Act. -- Ed Huntress |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual experience. I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican. Nor are you. You're a moron, Delvin. You're not a Republican, eddie. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:55:50 -0800, Hawke
wrote: On 2/7/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/7/2012 1:40 PM, Hawke wrote: On 2/7/2012 5:27 AM, wrote: On Feb 7, 1:22 am, Jeff wrote: The poor in 1900 did not have cell phones, HD televisions, cars, microwave ovens, and such. The poor in 2000 have all of those things. Neither did the rich. What is your point? Lots of things have changed, usually for the better, over the past 112 years, even for the poor. The poor of today are better off than the poor of 1900, just like everybody else is. So what? My point is that Hawke is wrong when he says there has been no change. If you use constant standards, the poor today are well off. But if you say the poor is the fifteen percent of the population that has the lowest income, there is no way to change things. There will always be people that make less than others. Dan Of course things have changed over the course of hundreds of years. But someone living in a 20' trailer with a small flat screen and the other things that come with it has all the modern conveniences from hot running water to a microwave and a computer but he's still poor. Compare him to a rich person in the mid 1800s who has non of those things but has a lot of wealth. You could take a Texas cattle rancher of the late 1800s and he's got none of the things today's guy in the trailer has. But he's got a big ranch house, thousands of acres of land, and all kinds of livestock and equipment. He's got no micro, no computer, no hot running water, and has an outhouse. So who is poorer? Yeah, who is? That rich guy with all his wealth couldn't afford *any* of that stuff. He didn't live as well, in many aspects, as a poor person of today. Yeah, that's probably true. When it comes to comfort and medical care the cattle rancher was a lot worse off. In other ways he was a lot better off. What that says is that it's not always a good idea to compare things now with what they used to be. My parents are in their eighties and in their youth they didn't have hardly any of what we take for granted. People lived in 600-900 square foot homes. They were lucky to have one car. Things are so different in the last 60 years it probably isn't a good idea to compare anything today with anything more than in the last fifty years. The world is too different now that at any time in the past to be used for comparison purposes. Hawke And, if they were a typical family of that era your mother didn't have to work to support the luxuries. They probably ate fresh vegetables in the summer and likely thought that they were pretty well off. By the way, what did you mean about "to have one car". Are you implying that anyone with ONLY one car is poor? cheers, Schweik |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:30 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:
On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual experience. I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican. Nor are you. You're a moron, Delvin. You're not a Republican, eddie. How would you know, moron? -- Ed Huntress |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:39:22 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote: On 2/7/2012 4:50 PM, Hawke wrote: On 2/7/2012 1:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote: What you fail to realize is that even if every single working person in America had a Ph.D there would still be loads of poor people. You seem to think that there are enough high paying jobs so that if everyone wanted to they could get one. As is usually the case with economics illiterates, you are tripped up by committing the lump of labor fallacy. You believe, wrongly, that there is only so much work to be done. In fact, the amount of work to be done is limitless. Is it now? Yes. How about the amount of available resources and the amount of human beings? Irrelevant; have nothing to do with how much work people would like to have done. How much work people would like to do and the amount of resources available to them have a lot to do with each other. There is always more work to be done than there are workers to do it; not necessarily at wages that equate the supply and demand for labor. Actually that isn't correct. If the work actually needs to get done then wages do follow supply and demand. If, for example, a new factory opens they will, in order to get workers, have to pay a large enough salary to entice people to come to work there. It is only when there is an over supply of workers that the factories really squeeze the workers. Much clipped Cheers John B. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/8/2012 3:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:30 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual experience. I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican. Nor are you. You're a moron, Delvin. You're not a Republican, eddie. How would you know, moron? By the well-left-of-center crap you right here, not-so-fast eddie. Your sentiments are all left-wing - well to the left of center, even for the left-leaning area in which you live. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:51:51 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:
On 2/8/2012 3:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:30 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual experience. I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican. Nor are you. You're a moron, Delvin. You're not a Republican, eddie. How would you know, moron? By the well-left-of-center crap you right here, not-so-fast eddie. Your sentiments are all left-wing - well to the left of center, even for the left-leaning area in which you live. I'm anti-bull****, Delvin. If you ignore TMT and Hawke (which I mostly do), almost all of it comes from the right. Like, for example, your stupid propaganda about the birther issue. You still don't seem to know what dicta is, and your novel idea about "basic citizenship" is a pile of bull that you made up on the spot. So I mostly contradict you rightards. Relative to you, I'm to the left. But so were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. -- Ed Huntress |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/8/2012 8:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:51:51 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/8/2012 3:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:30 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote: On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327 wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor... They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads. Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual experience. I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican. Nor are you. You're a moron, Delvin. You're not a Republican, eddie. How would you know, moron? By the well-left-of-center crap you right here, not-so-fast eddie. Your sentiments are all left-wing - well to the left of center, even for the left-leaning area in which you live. I'm anti-bull****, Delvin. Ha ha ha ha ha! No, you're just highly partisan in your choice of palatable bull****, not-so-fast eddie. If you ignore TMT and Hawke (which I mostly do), almost all of it comes from the right. Like, for example, your stupid propaganda about the birther issue. You still don't seem to know what dicta is, That would be you, not-so-fast eddie. You called the Happersett discussion of citizenship dicta, then said it wasn't dicta and denied having called it dicta. You're not only not a lawyer, not-so-fast eddie, but you're not even a well-read layman regarding the law. What you are, not-so-fast eddie, is a left-wing blowhard who for some bizarre reason (shame? dunno) is afraid just say you're a leftist and *be* a leftist. and your novel idea about "basic citizenship" is a pile of bull that you made up on the spot. No, not-so-fast eddie, you're lying - again. You said the court "explicitly said that it was not deciding the question of 'natural born.'" It said no such thing. You quoted, then misinterpreted, the court in Happersett: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." "Those doubts", not-so-fast eddie, were *not* regarding natural born citizenship - they were about simple, or basic, citizenship. I invented nothing, you incompetent and unimaginative liar. So I mostly contradict you rightards. You are a leftard, not-so-fast eddie - and a dishonest one, but that goes without saying. Relative to you, I'm to theleft. You are well to the left of the American center. But so were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. No, not-so-fast eddie. Reagan was an avowed conservative. I'm libertarian. Goldwater ran for president as a libertarian-inclined conservative, and became more libertarian in the rest of his Senate career. You are an in-denial leftist, not-so-fast eddie. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote:
The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer, housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?. Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an indication that you are poor? The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the "Poor People". Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he doesn't have the house in Aspen? Or is that simply jealousy? The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to a discussion of whether I am rich or poor. If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what is it that distinguishes rich and poor? Hawke |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0800, Hawke
wrote: On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote: The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer, housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?. Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an indication that you are poor? The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the "Poor People". Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he doesn't have the house in Aspen? Or is that simply jealousy? The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to a discussion of whether I am rich or poor. If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what is it that distinguishes rich and poor? Hawke I can only assume that you are deliberately misconstruing everything that deviates from your side of the discussion. But, lets say get personal. You have written, I believe, that you have an income from investments of around 40 - 50,000 dollars and that you live on a 5 acre place in N. California. Does this mean that everyone with more then $50,000 a year is rich? Or, that anyone who owns more then 5 acres is rich? Cheers John B. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/8/2012 7:18 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 2/7/2012 5:40 PM, wrote: On Feb 7, 8:17 pm, wrote: We need a capitalistic system with a lot of government involvement. Too much of either one messes things up. Getting the right balance is the hard part. But look around at other countries and you see some that have done a lot better than we have. Hawwke-ptooey But you have been saying capitalism is bad, yet now you say we need it. You can not argue both ways. Dan Capitalism can be bad or good depending on how it is run. The way we do it is bad because it is benefiting a few tremendously and the majority quite poorly. If you changed it to where it benefited the majority tremendously and the rich not very then it would be a pretty good system. It has potential but is not close to it at this point. It's not a matter of all bad or all good. It's more complicated than that. Hawwke-ptooey "...how it is run." Thank you, Hawwke-ptooey, you've really shown us all the depth of your knowledge and wisdom. You've shown us how aware you are of the lives of most of those in what was once known as the Third World. What you consider poor would be to them unimagined wealth. Guys, I think we should retire this thread and dedicate it as a memorial to all the wisdom and knowledge that Hawwke-ptooey has displayed in his time here. As a highly educated man, as evidenced by his having a poli sci BA from ...somewhere..., we know we can look to him for guidance in these uncertain times and also know that he can always be depended on to tell us vaguely what the DNC wants us to think. Or feel. Or whatever... David |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
Delvin Benet ýt wrote:
You're not a Republican, eddie. How would you know, moron? By the well-left-of-center crap you right here, not-so-fast eddie. Your sentiments are all left-wing - well to the left of center, even for the left-leaning area in which you live. Since when was being "right winged", "bigoted", "conservative" or any other form of nutcase isim, a requirement to be a "Republican" or a "republican". Given the almost binary nature of our political choice, I suspect that the majority of the people registered as Big D or Big R do not espouse all of the official line of their party, much less the hot wind from the flapping exttrrrrrrrreeme wings. He could be the biggest liberal, touchy feely wingnut, and still be a registered Republican. You have not clue if he is or not, and certainly no control over it. If you want that you need to go to main land china, where they DO control who joins the party. jk |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
|
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/8/2012 7:56 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
Capitalism can be bad or good depending on how it is run. The way we do it is bad because it is benefiting a few tremendously and the majority quite poorly. If you changed it to where it benefited the majority tremendously and the rich not very then it would be a pretty good system. It has potential but is not close to it at this point. It's not a matter of all bad or all good. It's more complicated than that. Hawwke-ptooey "...how it is run." Thank you, Hawwke-ptooey, you've really shown us all the depth of your knowledge and wisdom. You've shown us how aware you are of the lives of most of those in what was once known as the Third World. What you consider poor would be to them unimagined wealth. Guys, I think we should retire this thread and dedicate it as a memorial to all the wisdom and knowledge that Hawwke-ptooey has displayed in his time here. As a highly educated man, as evidenced by his having a poli sci BA from ...somewhere..., we know we can look to him for guidance in these uncertain times and also know that he can always be depended on to tell us vaguely what the DNC wants us to think. Or feel. Or whatever... Or we could ask David for some of his brilliant thoughts and ideas on a few of life's weightier issues. Since he believes himself to be of superior intellect and able to judge others it would be nice for him to help us out and one day give us a taste of his brilliant mind in action. But until that time I guess we have to be satisfied with the excellence he has shown in finding fault with something I have said. The unfortunate thing is that like always he has nothing else of value to add to any discussion unless you consider ad hominem attacks to be a positive thing. So keep up the good work, David. I don't know how we could function without your insightful criticism into everything I say. But one does wonder why it is you have nothing else to add but criticism? Is that all you've got? All you can do is find fault and criticize other people? That's lame actually. Try putting something else up sometime that proves to the group how smart you are. I'm sure I can find something wrong with it pretty fast. Hawke |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/9/2012 11:15 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/8/2012 7:20 PM, wrote: On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0800, Hawke wrote: On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote: The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer, housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?. Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an indication that you are poor? The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the "Poor People". Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he doesn't have the house in Aspen? Or is that simply jealousy? The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to a discussion of whether I am rich or poor. If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what is it that distinguishes rich and poor? Hawke I can only assume that you are deliberately misconstruing everything that deviates from your side of the discussion. But, lets say get personal. You have written, I believe, that you have an income from investments of around 40 - 50,000 dollars and that you live on a 5 acre place in N. California. Does this mean that everyone with more then $50,000 a year is rich? Or, that anyone who owns more then 5 acres is rich? To communicate people have to agree on what things mean. With a lot of people you get a lot of different ideas of what things mean. Ask what socialism means and you get a lot of different answers. Ask what is rich and you also get a lot of different answers. I would suggest that we would stipulate that rich is what is commonly accepted as rich in our society. There is no commonly accepted meaning, and even if there were, that doesn't mean it's usable. Most people think pro athletes, entertainers, and successful businessmen, are rich. That's not defining "being rich". But usually it depends on where you are that determines what you think rich is. Mitt Romney doesn't think the 370,000 a year he makes from speaking events is very much. I think most people disagree with him. Compared to executives earning millions, and many lawyers and doctors and other professionals earning $500,000 and more, it isn't very much. If we look at what the average man makes it's about 43K a year according to the 2006 census. Also, the census says that 1.93% of all households earned more than 250K a year. In my book, I'd say anyone making that kind of money is rich. Other people say it's wealth that matters not income. I agree. Warren Buffet and Bull Gates don't earn that much income but they are the wealthiest men in the country. So I would say wealth is a lot better measure than income for determining who is rich. If I own a $10 million dollar house and nothing else, and earn just enough money to pay for property taxes, utilities and enough left over to buy myself some dog food, am I rich? But all things are relative. Compared to those guys I'm in poverty. Compared to a Latin American peasant I'm rich. So it all depends on what we are talking about and that we agree on what things mean. There is no agreement, and there never will be as long as extremist liars like you are in on the discussion. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On 2/8/2012 3:12 AM, Schweik wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:55:50 -0800, Hawke wrote: On 2/7/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/7/2012 1:40 PM, Hawke wrote: On 2/7/2012 5:27 AM, wrote: On Feb 7, 1:22 am, Jeff wrote: The poor in 1900 did not have cell phones, HD televisions, cars, microwave ovens, and such. The poor in 2000 have all of those things. Neither did the rich. What is your point? Lots of things have changed, usually for the better, over the past 112 years, even for the poor. The poor of today are better off than the poor of 1900, just like everybody else is. So what? My point is that Hawke is wrong when he says there has been no change. If you use constant standards, the poor today are well off. But if you say the poor is the fifteen percent of the population that has the lowest income, there is no way to change things. There will always be people that make less than others. Dan Of course things have changed over the course of hundreds of years. But someone living in a 20' trailer with a small flat screen and the other things that come with it has all the modern conveniences from hot running water to a microwave and a computer but he's still poor. Compare him to a rich person in the mid 1800s who has non of those things but has a lot of wealth. You could take a Texas cattle rancher of the late 1800s and he's got none of the things today's guy in the trailer has. But he's got a big ranch house, thousands of acres of land, and all kinds of livestock and equipment. He's got no micro, no computer, no hot running water, and has an outhouse. So who is poorer? Yeah, who is? That rich guy with all his wealth couldn't afford *any* of that stuff. He didn't live as well, in many aspects, as a poor person of today. Yeah, that's probably true. When it comes to comfort and medical care the cattle rancher was a lot worse off. In other ways he was a lot better off. What that says is that it's not always a good idea to compare things now with what they used to be. My parents are in their eighties and in their youth they didn't have hardly any of what we take for granted. People lived in 600-900 square foot homes. They were lucky to have one car. Things are so different in the last 60 years it probably isn't a good idea to compare anything today with anything more than in the last fifty years. The world is too different now that at any time in the past to be used for comparison purposes. Hawke And, if they were a typical family of that era your mother didn't have to work to support the luxuries. They probably ate fresh vegetables in the summer and likely thought that they were pretty well off. Like I said, thing were so different for them that we can't compare our lives to theirs. My parents lived in the Depression. After that they thought life was great. It was compared to what they had gone through. They really felt well off after WWII. Life was good for them. I don't know that it's better because of the things we have now that they didn't. By the way, what did you mean about "to have one car". Are you implying that anyone with ONLY one car is poor? I meant most people in those days were lucky to own "A" car. Nowadays you see many cars in most family driveways. I wasn't implying one car means someone is poor. But show me a rich man and I'll show you a guy with a bunch of cars. Hawke |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:15:45 -0800, Hawke
wrote: On 2/8/2012 7:20 PM, wrote: On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0800, Hawke wrote: On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote: The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer, housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?. Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an indication that you are poor? The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the "Poor People". Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he doesn't have the house in Aspen? Or is that simply jealousy? The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to a discussion of whether I am rich or poor. If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what is it that distinguishes rich and poor? Hawke I can only assume that you are deliberately misconstruing everything that deviates from your side of the discussion. But, lets say get personal. You have written, I believe, that you have an income from investments of around 40 - 50,000 dollars and that you live on a 5 acre place in N. California. Does this mean that everyone with more then $50,000 a year is rich? Or, that anyone who owns more then 5 acres is rich? To communicate people have to agree on what things mean. With a lot of people you get a lot of different ideas of what things mean. Ask what socialism means and you get a lot of different answers. Ask what is rich and you also get a lot of different answers. I would suggest that we would stipulate that rich is what is commonly accepted as rich in our society. Most people think pro athletes, entertainers, and successful businessmen, are rich. But usually it depends on where you are that determines what you think rich is. Mitt Romney doesn't think the 370,000 a year he makes from speaking events is very much. I think most people disagree with him. If we look at what the average man makes it's about 43K a year according to the 2006 census. Also, the census says that 1.93% of all households earned more than 250K a year. In my book, I'd say anyone making that kind of money is rich. Other people say it's wealth that matters not income. I agree. Warren Buffet and Bull Gates don't earn that much income but they are the wealthiest men in the country. So I would say wealth is a lot better measure than income for determining who is rich. But all things are relative. Compared to those guys I'm in poverty. Compared to a Latin American peasant I'm rich. So it all depends on what we are talking about and that we agree on what things mean. Bottom line is rich means that compared to the average, you are in a very small percentage of people who have a large amount of income or wealth. The bad thing is that according to those standards I don't qualify. But I already knew that. Hawke Lets see. Warron Buffet had an adjusted gross income in 2010 of $62,855,038 and his taxable income was $39,814,784. He paid federal income tax bill of $6,923,494. Bill Gates, on the other hand, has a paltry income of only $16,866,662,400. But you say that Warron and Billie don't earn "that much", which certainly leaves a certain amount of doubt about either your comprehension or your veracity. Cheers John B. |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Feb 6, 8:07*pm, Ignoramus8327
wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... i I'm with Ig on this...he's right. TMT |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote: Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor... i Gunner raises his hand while looking over at the two roommates he took in when they lost their jobs and their home. One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. Gunner Asch |
WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:00:00 -0800, Hawke
wrote: On 2/8/2012 9:36 PM, jk wrote: George wrote: The idea is that millions and millions are making less than 10.00 an hour and Bill O'Reilly is making millions a year at his job. So? The difference between what each is paid is huge. So? Apparently, O'Reilly is able to add a lot more value than Walmart employees are. At least that is what the market is saying. And it's correct. That would be true if everything the market said was correct or the right thing to do. But No "buts" about it. It is correct: O'Reilly adds more value than any That's where you loose me. I don't think he adds value, clearly others do. I think he is a puffed up windbag, but some times amusing. But then I don't think entertainers must "add value" to be well paid, just be amusing. The good ones do add value, and are better paid. But then I though Rush was a comedian the first sever times I heard him on the radio. I just wondered WHEN he was EVER going to get to the punch line. jk I think you can see my point, which is that just because the "market" decided what someone gets paid that doesn't' mean it makes sense is fair, or is rational. Katie Couric got paid 15 million a year to read the news for 30 minutes a day. Supposedly that was decided by the market. I say it was determined by a group of executives. The thing is a lot of jobs pay way too much for what they provide and a lot pay way too little for what is done. That's what the market decides but who said the market actually makes any sense or is the least bit fair? As we all know in many cases it's neither. It's just that some people are so ideologically wedded to the idea that nothing is better than the free market they can't imagine anything could ever be better. Hawke And, as usual, you are wrong. The glamour faces on TV are there for the same reason that sports events are. to get a higher "viewer count". It is that simple, you want the big advertising accounts you got to prove that the advertisers have the most exposure on your station so you hire beautiful people and pay substantial sums to be able to show the National League play-offs. During the 2011 Tour de France some 15,000,000 watched the race from the course and millions more on TV. The price that advertisers will pay for that amount of exposure is what governs how much the competitors are paid. So actually it is market pressure that is the basis of the high paid athletes and the glamour pusses. Cheers John B. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter