Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 15th, 2012 at 9:12:07 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Mission146

Speaking of Ohio, guess who has invitations to go see Bill Clinton on Thursday in Steubenville!!!

I'm taking my copy of, My Life, anyone want to give me some Odds of it getting signed?



I'm interested in Clinton's mood towards Obama
when you see him. He is not happy right now,
Obama is dumping the Libya fiasco in Hillary's lap
because of his massive incompetency. They
aren't happy and very much want Obama to
lose in Nov. Hillary has no chance in 2016
if we get four more years of a do nothing disaster
like Obama.



I would be shocked if Bill Clinton expresses any of this, given that he is in town for an Obama rally. I'm not particularly interested in that part. I'm interested in meeting the greatest President of my lifetime, shaking his hand...and having him sign my book!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
October 15th, 2012 at 9:50:21 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I'm interested in meeting the greatest President of my lifetime, shaking his hand...and having him sign my book!



They dug up Ronald Reagan?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Scotty71
Scotty71
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
October 15th, 2012 at 10:11:46 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

They dug up Ronald Reagan?



++
when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." — E.E. Cummings
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 15th, 2012 at 10:40:48 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

They dug up Ronald Reagan?



I'm sorry, did someone cue the Star Wars theme on WoV, or is that just in my head?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 6:36:29 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146



I would be shocked if Bill Clinton expresses any of this, given that he is in town for an Obama rally. I'm not particularly interested in that part. I'm interested in meeting the greatest President of my lifetime, shaking his hand...and having him sign my book!



Will be hard to do, Reagan is dead.

Rats, someone beat me to that.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 7:28:54 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I'm sorry, did someone cue the Star Wars theme on WoV, or is that just in my head?



You need to learn to make the right references. That would be the Empire's theme from Star Wars, not the Star Wars theme. Otherwise it makes little sense. See, the Empire's theme is the ominous, ponderous music you hear as background to the Star Destroyers and Darth Vader marching about the bridge of the Super Star Destroyer or the Death Star. The Star Wars theme is the heroic, call-to-arms, upbeat music that opens every movie.

Let's try again:

So, they dug up Ronald Reagan?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 7:58:23 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

You need to learn to make the right references. That would be the Empire's theme from Star Wars, not the Star Wars theme. Otherwise it makes little sense. See, the Empire's theme is the ominous, ponderous music you hear as background to the Star Destroyers and Darth Vader marching about the bridge of the Super Star Destroyer or the Death Star. The Star Wars theme is the heroic, call-to-arms, upbeat music that opens every movie.

Let's try again:

So, they dug up Ronald Reagan?



That's the reference I wanted, Star Wars defense system. We're still talking about U.S.A. v. U.S.S.R., so we'd still be the good guys, just the retarded good guys who think we can shoot down missiles from outer space.

Oh, and trickle-down Economics? That's cute.

By the way, didn't he also run up a bigger deficit than every President before him...combined? Let's see, he's the only President in which the country never saw a minimum wage increase before his term ended, the poverty rate remained the same, we went from being the biggest creditor country in the world to the biggest debtor...

Seems like Obama is taking a lot of flack for some of these very same things!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 8:09:21 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

We're still talking about U.S.A. v. U.S.S.R., so we'd still be the good guys, just the retarded good guys who think we can shoot down missiles from outer space.



He won the Cold War, dind't he? Along with help from Thatcher's GB, and not least from the Polish Solidarity Union. One thing that helped was the Reagan fought it in moral terms, not just political ones.

Quote:

Oh, and trickle-down Economics? That's cute.



See the economic growth and rising living standards in his two terms.

Quote:

By the way, didn't he also run up a bigger deficit than every President before him...combined?



I dind't say he was perfect. But consider he labored under mostly Democratic-controlled Congress. And it's the latter that ultimately controls the purse-strings. Obama had a Democratic Cnogress in his first two years, and managed to do even worse: bigger deficits, bigger debt, lower economic growth. Clinton began trying to spend big, but got stopped. First by a GOP filibuster, then by a GOP controlled Congress.

Not that the GOP is fiscally responsible. Oh, not in the elast. Under W. Bush with a GOP Congress for 6 out of 8 years, spanding went through the roof. It's that dreaded Deficit Attention Disorder I brought up before: the GOP is obssesed with the deficit only when it's out of power.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 8:39:26 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

That's the reference I wanted, Star Wars defense system. We're still talking about U.S.A. v. U.S.S.R., so we'd still be the good guys, just the retarded good guys who think we can shoot down missiles from outer space.



Uh, we are gtting to being able to do that, or haven't you heard? I don't know about you, but I would rather we have the ability to defend ourselves than depend on MAD as our protection.


Quote:

By the way, didn't he also run up a bigger deficit than every President before him...combined? Let's see, he's the only President in which the country never saw a minimum wage increase before his term ended, the poverty rate remained the same, we went from being the biggest creditor country in the world to the biggest debtor...



A minimum wage increase is not a good thing, it reduces employment prospects for those at the bottom. Ever notice there is now rarely a guy who will towel-dry your car at the car wash; or all those self-serve registers at The Home Deopt? All kinds of little jobs like that are gone. They remove the first rung for people who want a stgart, or a little job for someone who needs a few bucks on the side.

As to biggest creditor to biggest debtor, that is misleading. We became a debtor because under Reagan both USA and foreign investors saw better returns available in the USA than elsewhere so money flowed in. If Toyota builds a plant in the USA we are a net debtor. If GM builds a plant in Mexico we are a net creditor. Which is better for the economy?

Quote:

Seems like Obama is taking a lot of flack for some of these very same things!



The difference is Reagan made a booming economy, lots of jobs, and a mjor fall in energy prices. And destroyed the USSR in his spare time. Obama has prolonged a recession with no end in sight.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 9:32:18 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

He won the Cold War, dind't he? Along with help from Thatcher's GB, and not least from the Polish Solidarity Union. One thing that helped was the Reagan fought it in moral terms, not just political ones.



Yeah, excellent, he proved we could win the pissing contest by spending unnecessary money on defense instead of focusing the revenue Domestically. He really proved something there, when it was that VERY defense spending that collapsed Russia's economy. I laugh at the word, "War," credit war, perhaps, in the sense that we proved that we had better access to credit to fund the so-called, "War."

The Cold War is irrelevant. Nobody presses the button, period. The U.S.S.R. could exist to this day and it would not make one iota of domestic or standards of living difference.


Quote:

See the economic growth and rising living standards in his two terms.



For who? The wealthy? The share of wealth FELL for the lowest fifth of Americans during his pathetic excuse for a Presidency. Why? Because you have inflation (false inflation, due to borrowing, at that) and you don't have a minimum wage increase to go along with that inflation. I understand that inflation, as a percentage, decreased, but there was still inflation and the incomes of the people who needed it the most did not rise proportionally. More money was invested in abstractions instead of base goods, not the best Economic mover.

He did cut EPA spending, I'll give him that, better to just cut the EPA, as a whole, but, oh well...

Oh yeah, and an overall drop in unemployment, who gives a shit? Here's what we are going to do: You have to work in order to live worse. We're cutting social safety nets, borrowing more money than EVER IN HISTORY from other countries for wasted defense spending, you'll have jobs, but you'll live worse for working than you did prior because of the cut of social safety nets...and we will strrive, my fellow Americans, to have the greatest income disparity in the world between the rich and poor!

Freaking worthless jobs with a minimum wage that doesn't even keep up with inflation.

I'm glad he's dead. His continued existence was an embarassment to our country.

Quote:

I dind't say he was perfect. But consider he labored under mostly Democratic-controlled Congress. And it's the latter that ultimately controls the purse-strings. Obama had a Democratic Cnogress in his first two years, and managed to do even worse: bigger deficits, bigger debt, lower economic growth. Clinton began trying to spend big, but got stopped. First by a GOP filibuster, then by a GOP controlled Congress.

Not that the GOP is fiscally responsible. Oh, not in the elast. Under W. Bush with a GOP Congress for 6 out of 8 years, spanding went through the roof. It's that dreaded Deficit Attention Disorder I brought up before: the GOP is obssesed with the deficit only when it's out of power.



Democratic-Controlled Congress? What's the difference? He got everything he wanted. Increased defense spending, borrowing, trickle-down, no increase to minimum wage, the poor became poorer (as percentage of wealth)...everything he wanted.

I never claimed Obama has done a good job, strawman.

Clinton realized his relative position, but he worked with the other side. Did he have any other choice? Yeah, he could have vetoed the Hell out of everything, but he worked for compromise.

Reagan was fiscally responsible? Bullshit. He signed this stuff into law, he had to okay the borrowing, he could have vetoed, vetoed and vetoed!

What did Clinton do? FMLA, BOOM! Your spouse is in the hospital with cancer, your employer can't say, "Go fuck yourself, you come to work or you're fired." Clinton raised taxes on the very rich, and cut them for millions of low-income families and 90% 90% of small businesses. BOOM! Base goods, service sector, gas stations, hotels, restaurants, hair stylists, general stores, etc. etc. ad nauseum! BOOM! Base goods, more spending, move the money, don't let it lose value, spend it now without borrowing.

BOOM! More EITA, don't discourage lower-income families and single-mothers from working and encourage them into welfare, make it pay for them to work. BOOM! More base goods, more jobs, more spending, less welfare, better living standards. Expand welfare at a LOWER COST!!! See? Better social welfare, but still cheaper than it was before.

BOOM! Increased minimum wage! Only way to do it. Give employers a minimum, and that's what the workers will get. Could pay more, which would result in less Social Welfare, which would in turn result in lower taxes, but nope, that's unacceptable to many of them. They're getting it one way or the other, pay it freely or have it taxed, it's up to you...

More base goods, more jobs, work pays, more disposable income. BOOM! Greatest Economic and best social equality of my lifetime. Best Social Mobility. Best working conditions.

Less income disparity, less unemployment, less welfare spending...but a better standard of living!!!???

How did he do it?

Because he is President William Fucking Jefferson Clinton, that's how he did it. God bless that guy...
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 10:03:07 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Uh, we are gtting to being able to do that, or haven't you heard? I don't know about you, but I would rather we have the ability to defend ourselves than depend on MAD as our protection.



Yeah, in the future! Reagan was an idiot, the technology for it wasn't even there, then. MAD was the only thing that kept U.S.S.R. from calling that pathetic excuse for a bluff (or firing before he even took office, obviously). The infrastructure and technology simply did not exist, they were in development, and he knew damn well that it would take longer than his entire Presidency for it to be realized and he POURED BORROWED MONEY into it. He sacrificed the living standards on his most destitute of countrymen for a bluff. Why? To end a Cold War that had progressed for decades with nothing ever happening? It was never going to happen. The Soviet economy would have failed, anyway, it just would have taken a decade (or so) longer. He sped up the inevitable, and spent a lot of freaking money that wasn't ours doing it.

(Insert sarcastic golf clap here)


Quote:

A minimum wage increase is not a good thing, it reduces employment prospects for those at the bottom. Ever notice there is now rarely a guy who will towel-dry your car at the car wash; or all those self-serve registers at The Home Deopt? All kinds of little jobs like that are gone. They remove the first rung for people who want a stgart, or a little job for someone who needs a few bucks on the side.



Greed. Greed. Greed. Fine, eliminate the jobs, and as soon as the opportunity presents itself, we will increase Social Welfare spending, getting the money one way or another, so you might as well employ as many people as you can at a decent wage so that you can at least claim to have the moral high ground.

Besides, should you want minimum wage not to keep up with inflation? $5.15/hour AFTER Clinton, where are we at right now if the minimum wage is still $5.15/hour with inflation and everything else that has gone on. I'll tell you. Remember that, "47%," controversy, imagine if he had said, "60%," that would certainly have cost him the election...and that's exactly where the percentage would have been.

Second job in the family, wife works part-time. Less week-to-week survival, less scrimping and pinching, WHAM, BAM, THANK YOU MA'AM, more disposable income (finally!) base goods, service sector, vacations, restaurants, golf, leisure, SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE, "Table 19, order up!!!" More jobs, more full-time jobs, more part-time jobs, more income, more base goods, more services. More disposable income! Welcome to the Wide World of Trickle-Up Economics!

Worked for Clinton. Tell me it didn't. Argue it, contest it, you can't, nobody can!!! He's got the numbers to prove it, tangible numbers.

You have to have the revenue to have jobs like those, and to have the revenue you have to be selling base goods, and to sell any base good other than food you have to have disposable income, and to have disposable income you have to have those jobs, and to have those jobs have spending value they have to make a decent wage.

Trickle-Up!!!

They shoot themselves in the foot with those machines. Particularly grocery. YAY! No more cashiers, so 1970's. Good, no more cashiers? Guess what, now nobody can buy anymore food than is absolutely necessary, now less people are going out to eat, now less gas money is getting spent getting to and from work, now less clothes are being bought, now a higher portion of income goes to utilities, as a percentage, which are still SKYROCKETING because of the worthless sons of bitches at the Economic Pitfall Agency (EPA), no services, no hair styling, no hotels, no travel, no new cars, no new USED car, nothing!

Axe the jobs until there is nothing left but technology, a true unemployment rate of 40%, only the Top 3% have anything at all.

Listen, even if there's not a Revolution, even if they don't have all Hell taxed out of them, their currency will be 100% patently worthless.

Of course, they'll probably just head overseas, anyway, that's where their production is, so it's fitting.

Trickle-Up, not down.

Quote:

As to biggest creditor to biggest debtor, that is misleading. We became a debtor because under Reagan both USA and foreign investors saw better returns available in the USA than elsewhere so money flowed in. If Toyota builds a plant in the USA we are a net debtor. If GM builds a plant in Mexico we are a net creditor. Which is better for the economy?

The difference is Reagan made a booming economy, lots of jobs, and a mjor fall in energy prices. And destroyed the USSR in his spare time. Obama has prolonged a recession with no end in sight.



The biggest deficit in history, to that point.

Why is everyone bringing up Obama? I never said a word in Obama's defense!!!!

If GM builds a plant in Mexico we need to regulate the imports into the U.S. within an inch of their lives. MAKE THEM FAIL. Make failure the only mathematical possibility. Support U.S. products, fuck everyone else. If you don't manufacture in the U.S., fuck you, we don't want it. You WILL manufacture in the U.S., and you WILL pay a livable wage...but if you do...people WILL buy your products. Everyone wins! Trickle-up.

Reagan sucked. He increased income disparity while decreasing welfare. He made employment a worthless endeavour. The energy problems started with, "The Crook."

Here's an energy price chart, Indexed:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=energy+prices+chart&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=660&tbm=isch&tbnid=bMfNEY3tbhBDKM:&imgrefurl=http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2005/08/am_i_from_outer.html&docid=rPkmeTwLCFm_0M&imgurl=http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/images/real_energy_prices_chart_only_082205.gif&w=375&h=281&ei=0pJ9UIv-MJOG0QHZl4HYBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=812&vpy=154&dur=24039&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=179&ty=103&sig=100110543339454507885&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=196&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:82

Uh-Oh. Reagan was good, Clinton was better.

U.S.S.R.? Cute. He didn't destroy anything, he sped up the inevitable.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 10:05:49 AM permalink
Why is the share of the bottom fifth important? What matters is how much more you make. And under Reagan everyone was better in 1988 than 1980.

I love hearing all the greedy Clinton supporters saying how taxing the rich is somehow good. As if less money to spend and invest helps the economy. What they do not say is after the Clinton tax increases ( which hit the middle class as well if they buy gas or anything moved with a truck) almost put us into recession. They slowed growth to .7% at one point and we heard about a "jobless recovery." It was not until the GOP takeover of congress that the boom came.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Scotty71
Scotty71
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
October 16th, 2012 at 10:15:39 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Yeah, excellent, he proved we could win the pissing contest by spending unnecessary money on defense instead of focusing the revenue Domestically. He really proved something there, when it was that VERY defense spending that collapsed Russia's economy. I laugh at the word, "War," credit war, perhaps, in the sense that we proved that we had better access to credit to fund the so-called, "War."

The Cold War is irrelevant. Nobody presses the button, period. The U.S.S.R. could exist to this day and it would not make one iota of domestic or standards of living difference.

How did he do it?

Because he is President William Fucking Jefferson Clinton, that's how he did it. God bless that guy...



Clinton worked very well with the economy he had...very true. So did Reagan. When you are the largest economy in the world and the reserve currency the- debts don't matter as much in all reality. Breaking the USSR was more important than you are acknowledging.
when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." — E.E. Cummings
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
Joined: May 14, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 10:17:45 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Greed. Greed. Greed. Fine, eliminate the jobs, and as soon as the opportunity presents itself, we will increase Social Welfare spending, getting the money one way or another, so you might as well employ as many people as you can at a decent wage so that you can at least claim to have the moral high ground.



One of my favorite restaurants shut down because the minimum wage went up- this was years ago and the reason the owners' cited in the local paper. I'll never forget it. Then everyone lost their jobs. Minimum wage jobs generally suck, although they're a starting point. But you shouldn't expect to own an iPhone, have an apt., and drive a nice car working a minimum wage job.

I'm not in the restaurant business, nor would I ever want to be, as the margins are very small from what I understand. But I know what it's like to run a small business, and having my paycheck used for cash flow and putting loans at risk. And when we make it big one day, shouldn't I expect to be rewarded for my efforts and risk?
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 10:34:44 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Why is the share of the bottom fifth important? What matters is how much more you make. And under Reagan everyone was better in 1988 than 1980.

I love hearing all the greedy Clinton supporters saying how taxing the rich is somehow good. As if less money to spend and invest helps the economy. What they do not say is after the Clinton tax increases ( which hit the middle class as well if they buy gas or anything moved with a truck) almost put us into recession. They slowed growth to .7% at one point and we heard about a "jobless recovery." It was not until the GOP takeover of congress that the boom came.



Bottom fifth?

But, but, but, wages fell in relation to GDP during the end of Reagan's Presidency:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=standard+of+living+chart+80%27s.&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=660&tbm=isch&tbnid=wjfGxWeYNMlWoM:&imgrefurl=http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D2265947%26page%3D2&docid=LN1jJka7OwkzSM&imgurl=http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807e69bedd095c000005/wages-to-gdp.png&w=906&h=679&ei=aJZ9UIS9Jsft0gHE7YE4&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=974&vpy=154&dur=5492&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=157&ty=118&sig=100110543339454507885&page=1&tbnh=139&tbnw=186&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:88

Besides that, it peaked in 80-freaking-7. The borrowing was simply unsustainable and then jobs were not being produced with the money. We stopped creating jobs because...you guessed it...Base good spending wasn't where it needed to be.

But, then it went up to 1980 levels for a brief time. Who was that under? OMG! It was under Clinton's Administration, imagine that! Reagan set up the failure, screwed the first Bush out of the Presidency, that's for sure. Can't last forever.

Jump to 2000. Dot.com bubble burst, big time hurting! Why? Because Dot.com produces no base goods, because of investment bankers and money that does not go to base goods spending! Trickle-up, only way to do it.

The rich? So, none of those 90% of small businesses for whom taxes were cut had rich owners? Were they homeless business owners? No. Base goods spending, service-industry spending, employment spending, trickle-up.

1.) Clinton still had to sign it.

2.) Clinton's policies are not going to take effect immediately. How can they? Takes time. Just like Reagan's failure towards the end, took time, made it look like Bush Sr.'s fault.

More money to invest IS the problem, because it needs to be SPENT! Base goods v. Money on Abstractions. Money on speculation. Money on opinions, scarcely founded on anything more than the worthless opinions of a few hundred people, max. What is not an abstraction? Go to a restaurant, purchase meals for a family of four. The food is not an abstraction. The base goods purchased by the server are not abstractions. More money on foodstuff bought BY the restaurant, transportation, agriculture, not abstractions!

Investment = Abstraction. The one exception is base goods investment, but derivatives, Dot.coms, falsely inflated housing market based on people that never should have had the credit to begin with? Abstraction, abstraction, abstraction...And instead of BOOM, you get POOF, the smoke clears, and the magician has disappeared leaving in his wake nothing. Empty stage. No actors. No magician. Nothing. Take something, make it nothing. Great Economics.

Base goods, trickle-up, tangible spending, no other solution.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 10:37:14 AM permalink
Not for nothing but as an admin you should know better than to drop F-bombs here.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 10:38:42 AM permalink
Quote: Scotty71

Clinton worked very well with the economy he had...very true. So did Reagan. When you are the largest economy in the world and the reserve currency the- debts don't matter as much in all reality. Breaking the USSR was more important than you are acknowledging.



Important, maybe. Inevitable, definitely. Resources to speed the process up? Unnecessary.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 10:39:05 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Not for nothing but as an admin you should know better than to drop F-bombs here.



Emphasis, per the Rules.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 10:51:11 AM permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak

One of my favorite restaurants shut down because the minimum wage went up- this was years ago and the reason the owners' cited in the local paper. I'll never forget it. Then everyone lost their jobs. Minimum wage jobs generally suck, although they're a starting point. But you shouldn't expect to own an iPhone, have an apt., and drive a nice car working a minimum wage job.

I'm not in the restaurant business, nor would I ever want to be, as the margins are very small from what I understand. But I know what it's like to run a small business, and having my paycheck used for cash flow and putting loans at risk. And when we make it big one day, shouldn't I expect to be rewarded for my efforts and risk?



You should expect to do all of those things with TWO minimum wage jobs, and they still cannot.

$7.25 * 2 * 40 * 52 = LESS THAN THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

In fact, it's slightly lower than 133% of the poverty line for a family of four, of course, they are at the point where they can no longer get State Insurance, so, in effect, it IS the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four.

For working TWO Full-Time jobs?

What?

$7.25 * 40 = $290 * 4 = $1,160/month (Approximately, correct in February)

Rents at $500-$700 month, low end? It hurts my head! How to get to work? Bus pass? For 2% of this person's income!! Insanity. No kids, no foodstamps, I hope you like Ramen Noodles and McDonald's, and in the meantime, I'll criticize you for your bad diet and nutritional choices that are costing the taxpayers money because, AT LEAST, your healthcare is paid for.

Minimum Wage. $4.75-$5.15, difference of $0.40, six employees, average 30 hours/week each, $0.40 * 180 = $72/week!

$72/week? They couldn't survive $72/week? They couldn't raise a glass of pop by $0.10, that's what Burger King did, went fair enough for them. They don't sell 720 glasses of pop per week? The restaurant was already a financial failure, perhaps they invested in the market poorly and that's why things were so tight? They should have been able to sustain that, plus you are talking server minimum wage, which may or may not have risen by the same amount. Benefit of the doubt, we'll say it did, and $288/month broke a restaurant?

If the hotel I manage had to sweat $288 a month, ever, I would fire myself.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Scotty71
Scotty71
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
October 16th, 2012 at 11:00:17 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

You should expect to do all of those things with TWO minimum wage jobs, and they still cannot.

$7.25 * 2 * 40 * 52 = LESS THAN THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

In fact, it's slightly lower than 133% of the poverty line for a family of four, of course, they are at the point where they can no longer get State Insurance, so, in effect, it IS the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four.

For working TWO Full-Time jobs?

What?

$7.25 * 40 = $290 * 4 = $1,160/month (Approximately, correct in February)

Rents at $500-$700 month, low end? It hurts my head! How to get to work? Bus pass? For 2% of this person's income!! Insanity. No kids, no foodstamps, I hope you like Ramen Noodles and McDonald's, and in the meantime, I'll criticize you for your bad diet and nutritional choices that are costing the taxpayers money because, AT LEAST, your healthcare is paid for.

Minimum Wage. $4.75-$5.15, difference of $0.40, six employees, average 30 hours/week each, $0.40 * 180 = $72/week!

$72/week? They couldn't survive $72/week? They couldn't raise a glass of pop by $0.10, that's what Burger King did, went fair enough for them. They don't sell 720 glasses of pop per week? The restaurant was already a financial failure, perhaps they invested in the market poorly and that's why things were so tight? They should have been able to sustain that, plus you are talking server minimum wage, which may or may not have risen by the same amount. Benefit of the doubt, we'll say it did, and $288/month broke a restaurant?

If the hotel I manage had to sweat $288 a month, ever, I would fire myself.[/q

I think this could foster a fun debate could we move it to a new thread?

when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." — E.E. Cummings
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
Joined: May 14, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 11:02:41 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

You should expect to do all of those things with TWO minimum wage jobs, and they still cannot.

$7.25 * 2 * 40 * 52 = LESS THAN THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

In fact, it's slightly lower than 133% of the poverty line for a family of four, of course, they are at the point where they can no longer get State Insurance, so, in effect, it IS the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four.

For working TWO Full-Time jobs?

What?

$7.25 * 40 = $290 * 4 = $1,160/month (Approximately, correct in February)

Rents at $500-$700 month, low end? It hurts my head! How to get to work? Bus pass? For 2% of this person's income!! Insanity. No kids, no foodstamps, I hope you like Ramen Noodles and McDonald's, and in the meantime, I'll criticize you for your bad diet and nutritional choices that are costing the taxpayers money because, AT LEAST, your healthcare is paid for.

Minimum Wage. $4.75-$5.15, difference of $0.40, six employees, average 30 hours/week each, $0.40 * 180 = $72/week!

$72/week? They couldn't survive $72/week? They couldn't raise a glass of pop by $0.10, that's what Burger King did, went fair enough for them. They don't sell 720 glasses of pop per week? The restaurant was already a financial failure, perhaps they invested in the market poorly and that's why things were so tight? They should have been able to sustain that, plus you are talking server minimum wage, which may or may not have risen by the same amount. Benefit of the doubt, we'll say it did, and $288/month broke a restaurant?

If the hotel I manage had to sweat $288 a month, ever, I would fire myself.



I'm just saying that because the minimum wage went up, in this case a business closed and there were fewer jobs, fewer taxes because of it, and that's not a good thing versus the alternative in my opinion. I would also counter that before people made the choice to have two children in your example, that they should be better financially prepared to support those children first. They had more than 6 employees so it wasn't just $288/month but it was the final straw, at least according to them.
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 11:10:58 AM permalink
So why not set the minimum wage at, oh, $95,000 a year? That would end poverty, right? :P
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Scotty71
Scotty71
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
October 16th, 2012 at 11:17:42 AM permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak

I'm just saying that because the minimum wage went up, in this case a business closed and there were fewer jobs, fewer taxes because of it, and that's not a good thing versus the alternative in my opinion. I would also counter that before people made the choice to have two children in your example, that they should be better financially prepared to support those children first. They had more than 6 employees so it wasn't just $288/month but it was the final straw, at least according to them.



Thank you for making the point about kids but some one will chime in about "well if they had free abortions... or free birthcontrol etc"
when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." — E.E. Cummings
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 11:25:47 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

You should expect to do all of those things with TWO minimum wage jobs, and they still cannot.

$7.25 * 2 * 40 * 52 = LESS THAN THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

In fact, it's slightly lower than 133% of the poverty line for a family of four, of course, they are at the point where they can no longer get State Insurance, so, in effect, it IS the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four.

For working TWO Full-Time jobs?

What?

$7.25 * 40 = $290 * 4 = $1,160/month (Approximately, correct in February)

Rents at $500-$700 month, low end? It hurts my head! How to get to work? Bus pass? For 2% of this person's income!! Insanity. No kids, no foodstamps, I hope you like Ramen Noodles and McDonald's, and in the meantime, I'll criticize you for your bad diet and nutritional choices that are costing the taxpayers money because, AT LEAST, your healthcare is paid for.

Minimum Wage. $4.75-$5.15, difference of $0.40, six employees, average 30 hours/week each, $0.40 * 180 = $72/week!

$72/week? They couldn't survive $72/week? They couldn't raise a glass of pop by $0.10, that's what Burger King did, went fair enough for them. They don't sell 720 glasses of pop per week? The restaurant was already a financial failure, perhaps they invested in the market poorly and that's why things were so tight? They should have been able to sustain that, plus you are talking server minimum wage, which may or may not have risen by the same amount. Benefit of the doubt, we'll say it did, and $288/month broke a restaurant?

If the hotel I manage had to sweat $288 a month, ever, I would fire myself.



Perhaps this is why people supporting families do not take minimum wage jobs? Minimum wage was never meant to support a family or even be a so-called "living wage." Mw jobs are mostly filled by teenagers, retires, and people looking for supplemental income. If you are above age 23 and can only qualify for minimum wage it us your fault for making bad life choices.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
Joined: May 14, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 11:29:28 AM permalink
Quote: Scotty71

Thank you for making the point about kids but some one will chime in about "well if they had free abortions... or free birthcontrol etc"



Of course- and we know how well that would work in the end... :)
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
Joined: May 14, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 11:34:18 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Perhaps this is why people supporting families do not take minimum wage jobs? Minimum wage was never meant to support a family or even be a so-called "living wage." Mw jobs are mostly filled by teenagers, retires, and people looking for supplemental income. If you are above age 23 and can only qualify for minimum wage it us your fault for making bad life choices.



What? You want people to take responsibility for themselves and their choices?! Now how could you propose such a thing! Next thing you know, you'll be saying life isn't always a bowl of cherries!
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 11:41:17 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Emphasis, per the Rules.



I guess I am just a person who believes leaders should hold themselves to a higher standard
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 12:11:22 PM permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak

I'm just saying that because the minimum wage went up, in this case a business closed and there were fewer jobs, fewer taxes because of it, and that's not a good thing versus the alternative in my opinion. I would also counter that before people made the choice to have two children in your example, that they should be better financially prepared to support those children first. They had more than 6 employees so it wasn't just $288/month but it was the final straw, at least according to them.



In that case. In other cases, workers had a better opportunity to afford housing and base goods, maybe had slightly more disposable income and the businesses got along fine. Are there other restaurants in that area that stayed open? How come they could sustain the increase to MW?

Perhaps they had children and one of the parents got laid off from a much higher paying job and had to take a minimum wage job. I don't think anyone sets out to make only minimum wage, and where there is unemployment, there will be people willing to take such jobs. If they do not, they will be viewed as leeches, if they do, then they are failures for not being, "Better financially prepared," can't win. You'd basically have to have $100,000 in the bank as a prerequisite to having children, I would say, in case of loss of irreplaceable job income.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 12:12:59 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I guess I am just a person who believes leaders should hold themselves to a higher standard



Apologies if you found my language offensive. My only standard is to be within the Rules, as with everyone else. Just because I am an Admin does not mean that I should lose what rights to Freedom of Speech do exist pursuant to the Rules, provided I operate within them. Again, apologies if my language offended you.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 12:16:26 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Perhaps this is why people supporting families do not take minimum wage jobs? Minimum wage was never meant to support a family or even be a so-called "living wage." Mw jobs are mostly filled by teenagers, retires, and people looking for supplemental income. If you are above age 23 and can only qualify for minimum wage it us your fault for making bad life choices.



Is the unemployment rate 0% and I missed it? Sometimes tyou take the only thing there. Extreme example, married couple in California, both in six-figures, too much in the stock market...both lost their jobs...months later...foreclosed and homeless. He probably shouldn't take a minimum wage job if one is offered, though, because that would be a bad idea.

What life choices? Need specifics. What if someone has a mental impairment and is deemed just self-sufficient enough to not qualify for disabiity and MW is the only job for which he is mentally equal to the task? What of this person?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
Joined: May 14, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 12:46:47 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

In that case. In other cases, workers had a better opportunity to afford housing and base goods, maybe had slightly more disposable income and the businesses got along fine. Are there other restaurants in that area that stayed open? How come they could sustain the increase to MW?



Different business have different challenges. And if they went out of business from the MW increase, then of course they weren't the only ones across the country: my neck of the woods isn't special. Besides, you see it all of the time: businesses weather all sorts of storms until there comes a time when they can't- and it can be for a variety of reasons. Not all businesses are made of titanium. Just this past Saturday, I noticed another place in a different part of town that closed down, although I'm not sure the reason, although it was likely the usual reason: money. Expenses just keep piling up- and then one day- there comes a time when it's not worth it anymore.
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 1:54:55 PM permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak

Different business have different challenges. And if they went out of business from the MW increase, then of course they weren't the only ones across the country: my neck of the woods isn't special. Besides, you see it all of the time: businesses weather all sorts of storms until there comes a time when they can't- and it can be for a variety of reasons. Not all businesses are made of titanium. Just this past Saturday, I noticed another place in a different part of town that closed down, although I'm not sure the reason, although it was likely the usual reason: money. Expenses just keep piling up- and then one day- there comes a time when it's not worth it anymore.



You're absolutely right about this, and I couldn't agree more if I tried. The point is that the business was on the brink of failure if that is what ultimately did them in, but the minimum wage increase, in and of itself, did not cause them to fail. It could have been a failure of the grill, and they could be in the paper saying, "We're sorry we have to close, but we can't get a loan for this new grill, and with everything else that has happened, it's just too much. We can't operate without a grill, of course."

In any event, in this case, it was MW that tipped the scale. It's not for me to say whether or not the scale should have been at that point, simply because I don't know what the market is. Obviously, we both know that you can't just pick up a building and move it to a different market, so whenever you are confined to a physical location, the market (money) can play a factor. I probably overstated earlier, they may have ran the restaurant exceptionally well and lasted as long as they reasonably could, but the market just wasn't there.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 2:39:05 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Is the unemployment rate 0% and I missed it? Sometimes tyou take the only thing there. Extreme example, married couple in California, both in six-figures, too much in the stock market...both lost their jobs...months later...foreclosed and homeless. He probably shouldn't take a minimum wage job if one is offered, though, because that would be a bad idea.

What life choices? Need specifics. What if someone has a mental impairment and is deemed just self-sufficient enough to not qualify for disabiity and MW is the only job for which he is mentally equal to the task? What of this person?



The life choice not to learn some kind of skill to improve your job prospects. The six figure couple may take mw short term if that is all there is but unlikely to stay there. If mw is all you can get then you are to blame.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
Joined: May 14, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 2:54:08 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

You're absolutely right about this, and I couldn't agree more if I tried. The point is that the business was on the brink of failure if that is what ultimately did them in, but the minimum wage increase, in and of itself, did not cause them to fail.



Certainly it would go without saying that if they were thriving on every level, then yes, I would agree, the MW increase would have been something they could have handled. But that wasn't their situation, and I'm not sure if it was a situation of it being the final straw, or if after running with it for a few months or even 6 or 12 months, they did the numbers and they didn't feel like fighting the good fight anymore. If it didn't occur, would they have kept their doors open longer? Yes, I believe they would have. Would they still be open today? Who knows...

My main point, as a business owner, is that these events don't occur in a vacuum. It's usually not just one thing- you're being assaulted on a number of levels and there comes a time when the country needs to decide whether it should enact policies that give businesses the best chance to continue to survive and thrive, or not. I think it would instructive for all of our politicians to at least have run a small company and make payroll. Then they'd understand...
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 3:57:14 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The life choice not to learn some kind of skill to improve your job prospects. The six figure couple may take mw short term if that is all there is but unlikely to stay there. If mw is all you can get then you are to blame.



That's patently wrong, because there would have to be a non-MW job available for everyone who desired to make more than MW. Besides, do you have any idea how hard it is for say, someone in finance, to get back into that field if his resume' shows McDonald's Manager for the last year? Not easy. \

The second thing is that, skills are great, but there are only a handful of professions for which there will always be a steady job market. Furthermore, if everyone (who can, some people just can't) decide to specialize in those professions, then the job market will be flooded and people will be unemployed, FT's will become many PT's, or older workers who are getting paid more and not fresh out of college with the most recent technical knowledge will be forced out.

Generalities are fine, you can make them, and I can agree with the generality in many circumstances. It's always specifics where you get into problems, life on the ground. Anecdotal argument, apologies, but one of my best friends is a hotel night auditor and he has a degree in Education from WVU. He just can't find anything better without relocating, nor can he find a teaching job anywhere.

In any event, my Economic model is to do it with wages, not welfare. I support better wage equality, and I'm strongly in favor of FT positions, make them mandatory, except for students. In this event, you can provide a wage that is at least a good living wage if you have two people in the household working, you'd base the wage for one on the current average cost of living, by State.

Let's talk about unemployment:

1.) The Government will find you work as soon as possible in a period of unemployment via a Government supported job listing site. That one lists oneself on the job site is mandatory if one is unemployed and receiving welfare. If you refuse, you lose, as in you're cut from the program.

2.) Social works. If you're not working, and are on welfare, then you are required, for each individual, to volunteer 40 hours per week accomplishing some sort of Social Good. It could be picking up highways, organizing donations, working on humanitarian efforts for other countries, helping organize donations to troops if we have troops abroad, the list goes on.

3.) Mandatory drug testing. If you are on welfare, you will be required to be subjected to random drug screening (at home) and there will also be a mandatory test once every six months during the time you are on welfare. If you are new to welfare, you must immediately submit to drug testing, that will dissuade even those who are not on welfare from doing drugs...just in case. In the event that a would-be welfare recipient tests positive, he has thirty days to submit a test, at his own expense, proving that he is clean. In the event he is unable to do so, or an active recipient fails the screening, they are cut off.

4.) Wage Subsidization. If there comes a time when, given the wage increase, businesses can conclusively prove that it is simply too much (and are willing to open the books to an auditor), then the business may have wages subsidized on a sliding scale for up to one calendar year by which the Government will determine how much relief a business needs and pay the difference.

5.) Universal Health Care-Denmark Model. Health Care Costs are ridiculous, and you have these pharmaceutical companies fronting the insurance companies ridiculous three-figure amounts for a certain prescription that they sell for pennies on the dollar...and yet still at a small profit...in other countries.

These are just ideas into which holes can easily be poked. We can get into specifics if you would like, though.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 4:32:21 PM permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak

Certainly it would go without saying that if they were thriving on every level, then yes, I would agree, the MW increase would have been something they could have handled. But that wasn't their situation, and I'm not sure if it was a situation of it being the final straw, or if after running with it for a few months or even 6 or 12 months, they did the numbers and they didn't feel like fighting the good fight anymore. If it didn't occur, would they have kept their doors open longer? Yes, I believe they would have. Would they still be open today? Who knows...

My main point, as a business owner, is that these events don't occur in a vacuum. It's usually not just one thing- you're being assaulted on a number of levels and there comes a time when the country needs to decide whether it should enact policies that give businesses the best chance to continue to survive and thrive, or not. I think it would instructive for all of our politicians to at least have run a small company and make payroll. Then they'd understand...



1.) You may be right, but anything can happen in the world of business, and God bless those who do go into business. We have jobs that would not otherwise exist for those people being in-business, and they take risks that other people are either unable or unwilling (is there a mirror nearby for me to gaze into?) to take. They are to be both saluted and respected as pillars of our community. Another thing, regardless of what Obama says, YES, they built that.

2.) I agree with your perspective, but these policies need not come at the expense of the low-level worker who is then branded a social outcast and pariah for either being a low-level worker or on welfare. These are people who may well have been dedicated and loyal employees who understood that the business could not afford to pay them more, but stuck around because they respected the small business owner and were otherwise treated well.

Here's the thing, we get into something like Social Security and they get a cost-of-living increase indexed by an inflational measurement that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I believe they came up with either 1.6% or 1.8% today. I'm going to look at average gas costs and I'm getting nearly 8% over last year. We're going to be looking at 2.5-3% on food prices. That's where most of this money goes!

I'm not saying that we are able to adjust accordingly right now, but what I am wondering about is why we don't adjust the wages for minimum wage according to even the poor inflation metric. You're talking about people who are, at a minimum, at least contributing to the Social Security fund, and they also have to use gas to get to work in the majority of cases.

The other thing is that businesses can't be left to do this completely by themselves. This was proven in the Industrial Revolution when you are talking about having horrendously unsafe working conditions, child labour, obscene working hours...especially for physical jobs...no safety nets for someone permanently severely injured and unable to work, just that person's bad luck.

I'm not saying that all of the companies would rape the employees, I've talked to you enough to know that you are a good human being who would not do that, but some of them would, no question about it. No minimum wage? Well, $2.00/hour is better than $0.00/hour, so yeah, they'd find enough people desperately hungry enough to staff, it'd be inhumane, but sure.

I readily admit it works the opposite way with the Unions. They're horrible, especially since over 50% of them are supposedly civil service positions. I don't mind taking a hit if it's necessary, if our revenues return to 2008 levels, then I probably need to return to my 2008 salary.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 4:42:31 PM permalink
Mmission, I must apologize for starting this whole thing. I'd no idea you'd get so worked up about politics. I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you someday, provided we take it one piece at a time. Eventually everything must be integrated, but it's ahrd to keep a good dialogue going when the aprticipants keep jumping from one piece to another.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy meeting Clinton, if that pelase you, and hopefully he'll sign your book.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 4:57:48 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Mmission, I must apologize for starting this whole thing. I'd no idea you'd get so worked up about politics. I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you someday, provided we take it one piece at a time. Eventually everything must be integrated, but it's ahrd to keep a good dialogue going when the aprticipants keep jumping from one piece to another.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy meeting Clinton, if that pelase you, and hopefully he'll sign your book.



Thank you, Nareed, but you have nothing to apologize for. I probably shouldn't get worked up about this kind of stuff as it doesn't affect me at my current income level, but I know what it's like to be darn poor from when I was a kid. I feel the worst for the children out there who don't get to enjoy anything in life, it leads to them committing crimes and giving up on trying to improve their situations. I was pretty resourceful, made money every way that I possibly could so I could show myself a good time. I'm no genius, though, but I recognize that not everyone could even achieve my limited success in life, so I feel badly for them.

Thank you for the last part, I'm really looking forward to it!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
October 16th, 2012 at 9:21:52 PM permalink
The CO professors who haven't been wrong ever,
since 1980, and predicted a Romney win in the
electoral college, have now predicted Romney
has a 77% liklihood of getting the majority of
popular votes as well. They use different models
for each prediction. http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

They obviously haven't seen Intrade.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 9:52:44 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

That's patently wrong, because there would have to be a non-MW job available for everyone who desired to make more than MW. Besides, do you have any idea how hard it is for say, someone in finance, to get back into that field if his resume' shows McDonald's Manager for the last year? Not easy. \

The second thing is that, skills are great, but there are only a handful of professions for which there will always be a steady job market. Furthermore, if everyone (who can, some people just can't) decide to specialize in those professions, then the job market will be flooded and people will be unemployed, FT's will become many PT's, or older workers who are getting paid more and not fresh out of college with the most recent technical knowledge will be forced out.



Sorry, but careers take turns here and there. And there are many fields where there is steady demand. From truck drivers to welders. Machinists to nurses. They are out there.


Quote:

Generalities are fine, you can make them, and I can agree with the generality in many circumstances. It's always specifics where you get into problems, life on the ground. Anecdotal argument, apologies, but one of my best friends is a hotel night auditor and he has a degree in Education from WVU. He just can't find anything better without relocating, nor can he find a teaching job anywhere.



Sorry, people have been relocating to find work in the USA since the first colonies have been founded. Not sure if your friend lives near WVU, but Morgantown is not the most booming place out there. If you want to rise in the hospitality industry, you must be mobile.


Quote:

In any event, my Economic model is to do it with wages, not welfare. I support better wage equality, and I'm strongly in favor of FT positions, make them mandatory, except for students. In this event, you can provide a wage that is at least a good living wage if you have two people in the household working, you'd base the wage for one on the current average cost of living, by State.



Make full-time mandatory? What do you want to do, destroy business creation? What about the business that needs a person only for the few busy hours a day? What about the person who does not even want full time? (there are many.) What on earth does "wage equality" mean? No offense, but do you realize how unworkable what you are saying is?




Quote:

1.) The Government will find you work as soon as possible in a period of unemployment via a Government supported job listing site. That one lists oneself on the job site is mandatory if one is unemployed and receiving welfare. If you refuse, you lose, as in you're cut from the program.



Sorry, we have Monster, CareerBuilder, Jobbing, LinkedIn, and dozens of others that do it better and without taxpayer funding. Listings at the Unemployment Bureau are fine, I found my favorite job ever via one, but the mere idea of even *saying" "the government will find you work" is a bit USSR.

Quote:

3.) Mandatory drug testing. If you are on welfare, you will be required to be subjected to random drug screening (at home) and there will also be a mandatory test once every six months during the time you are on welfare. If you are new to welfare, you must immediately submit to drug testing, that will dissuade even those who are not on welfare from doing drugs...just in case. In the event that a would-be welfare recipient tests positive, he has thirty days to submit a test, at his own expense, proving that he is clean. In the event he is unable to do so, or an active recipient fails the screening, they are cut off.



Fine by me, convince the Democrat Party and the ACLU. I will be on your side against them.

Quote:

4.) Wage Subsidization. If there comes a time when, given the wage increase, businesses can conclusively prove that it is simply too much (and are willing to open the books to an auditor), then the business may have wages subsidized on a sliding scale for up to one calendar year by which the Government will determine how much relief a business needs and pay the difference.



SOCIALISM! No thanks, I do not want my taxes going to subsidize wages. Let a new business start up who can pay better.

Quote:

These are just ideas into which holes can easily be poked. We can get into specifics if you would like, though.



Many holes to poke. Sorry, but I prefer an economy where government control is minimized and thus growth is robust. What you are suggesting is a mixture of Marxism, Fascism, and Socialism.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
RaspberryCheeseBlintz
RaspberryCheeseBlintz
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 38
Joined: Oct 22, 2011
October 16th, 2012 at 10:04:41 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

He won the Cold War, dind't he? Along with help from Thatcher's GB, and not least from the Polish Solidarity Union. One thing that helped was the Reagan fought it in moral terms, not just political ones.



See the economic growth and rising living standards in his two terms.



I dind't say he was perfect. But consider he labored under mostly Democratic-controlled Congress. And it's the latter that ultimately controls the purse-strings. Obama had a Democratic Cnogress in his first two years, and managed to do even worse: bigger deficits, bigger debt, lower economic growth. Clinton began trying to spend big, but got stopped. First by a GOP filibuster, then by a GOP controlled Congress.

Not that the GOP is fiscally responsible. Oh, not in the elast. Under W. Bush with a GOP Congress for 6 out of 8 years, spanding went through the roof. It's that dreaded Deficit Attention Disorder I brought up before: the GOP is obssesed with the deficit only when it's out of power.



Won the Cold War? He did no such thing. The Cold War was a fantasy built by people who made money on...the Cold War.

Reagan welcomed the proto-Taliban into the White House, calling them "Freedom Fighters". He gave vast amounts of money and arms and encouragement to what would become a movement of islamic fanatics that plagues us to this day. While calling Iran a "terror regime", and piously stating that he'd never negotiate with terrorists...he did exactly that. He prosecuted his own horrible terror war in Nicaragua, and abetted murderous right-wing thugs in El Salvador. He foolishly put 200+ marines in harms way, and then pulled the trigger on their doom by ordering the shelling of numerous Lebanese civilians leading to the bombing of said marines. He tossed vast sums into space on foolish projects like Star Wars and the useless ISS (promised cost: $8 billion. Actual: $100+ billion and counting).

Worst of all, he championed the corruption of the modern GOP by getting in bed with people who think the world is 6,000 years old, and feel evolution is a satanic plot.

We won't even get into his vast expansion of the disastrous Drug War, and the massive increase in our prison population (a statistic where we are truly #1).

He was a terrible president, and we suffer from his multiple disasters to this very day.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
October 16th, 2012 at 10:07:10 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

The CO professors who haven't been wrong ever,
since 1980, and predicted a Romney win in the
electoral college, have now predicted Romney
has a 77% liklihood of getting the majority of
popular votes as well. They use different models
for each prediction. http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435



Is 8 correct predictions in row between 2 choices that impressive? (well, it's not always two choices, but basically it's calling a coin flip for the most part)

I wouldn't risk any money in Vegas on a system with 8 wins of anything, even if it never lost yet.

At any rate, I'd like to see their model prediction break this time
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 16th, 2012 at 10:12:04 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, but careers take turns here and there. And there are many fields where there is steady demand. From truck drivers to welders. Machinists to nurses. They are out there.



I agree, but the market for a certain career can still become flooded.


Quote:

Sorry, people have been relocating to find work in the USA since the first colonies have been founded. Not sure if your friend lives near WVU, but Morgantown is not the most booming place out there. If you want to rise in the hospitality industry, you must be mobile.



He wants to teach, he coaches Middle School Football and H.S. Basketball right now. He just night audits because he has to do something, and it works with his schedule.


Quote:

Make full-time mandatory? What do you want to do, destroy business creation? What about the business that needs a person only for the few busy hours a day? What about the person who does not even want full time? (there are many.) What on earth does "wage equality" mean? No offense, but do you realize how unworkable what you are saying is?



That's why I said there would be holes. There would obviously be certain parameters based on business needs. Obviously, if you only have a small handful of employees, then it's different, but if you take something like a grocery store that staffs with a bunch of part-timers to duck giving FT benefits, that's a different matter. The people who want part-time are different, an individual can work only part-time if his/her household is Economically viable to the extent that they survive without welfare. If they work PT and depend on welfare, that will not be permitted.

Wage equality simply means less disparity.


Quote:

Sorry, we have Monster, CareerBuilder, Jobbing, LinkedIn, and dozens of others that do it better and without taxpayer funding. Listings at the Unemployment Bureau are fine, I found my favorite job ever via one, but the mere idea of even *saying" "the government will find you work" is a bit USSR.



Yes. Here's a job. We found it. Work or you will be off of the welfare program, those are your choices.


Quote:

SOCIALISM! No thanks, I do not want my taxes going to subsidize wages. Let a new business start up who can pay better.



It's unknown to me whether or not you would even pay taxes, in my scenario.

Quote:

Many holes to poke. Sorry, but I prefer an economy where government control is minimized and thus growth is robust. What you are suggesting is a mixture of Marxism, Fascism, and Socialism.



You can have Economic growth with Government Micro-Management of the workforce. You'd also cut spending in many other areas, prisons are a good one. For example, you expand the death penalty to include any offense involving a firearm (such as armed robbery), physically provable rape, physically provable child molestation and attempted murder, at a minimum. Bullets are cheaper than cells. Prisoners cannot produce, and why have them cleaning the highways when the Government could pay a free person (even less, ultimately, since they will not need armed supervision) to do it?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 16th, 2012 at 10:32:03 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I agree, but the market for a certain career can still become flooded.



Then you move into other work. The average person has what, 6 carrers in a lifetime now?

Quote:

He wants to teach, he coaches Middle School Football and H.S. Basketball right now. He just night audits because he has to do something, and it works with his schedule.



He should move. When I was in AZ they were always looking for good teachers. Teaching jobs in the norheast are harder to get than most places as far as I have noticed.

Quote:

That's why I said there would be holes. There would obviously be certain parameters based on business needs. Obviously, if you only have a small handful of employees, then it's different, but if you take something like a grocery store that staffs with a bunch of part-timers to duck giving FT benefits, that's a different matter. The people who want part-time are different, an individual can work only part-time if his/her household is Economically viable to the extent that they survive without welfare. If they work PT and depend on welfare, that will not be permitted.



Again, why should you have to be "permitted" a certain employer/employee relationship? If a grocery store wants to employ PT to "duck giving benefits" that is their business. One of a few things can happen. There may be a suprlus of labor in the area, in which case they will be able to staff. There may be a shortage of labor, meaning they will need to offer FT to more workers. They may get a lower-level of employee with only offering PT, or they may not. No matter what, it is their choice as a business to do it however they want. As it should be.

Quote:

Wage equality simply means less disparity.



Based on what? Wages are based on skill. I make more than the kid at the grocery store both because I deliver more value to my employer and I can do his job but he cannot do mine. A doctor makes more than me for the same reasons. Why is wage disparity a bad thing in this case? If there was less disparity then there is less motivation to improve yourself. Why go to college if you can make almost as much at the grocery store? Why learn a trade, taking years to go from apprentice to journeyman to master craftsman if you can make near as much as unskilled labor?

Sorry, wage disparity is not a bad thing, unmotivated people thinking they have a "right" to a living wage is.



Quote:

You can have Economic growth with Government Micro-Management of the workforce. You'd also cut spending in many other areas, prisons are a good one. For example, you expand the death penalty to include any offense involving a firearm (such as armed robbery), physically provable rape, physically provable child molestation and attempted murder, at a minimum. Bullets are cheaper than cells. Prisoners cannot produce, and why have them cleaning the highways when the Government could pay a free person (even less, ultimately, since they will not need armed supervision) to do it?



History shows otherwise. The more government manages the private sector, the more inefficient and distorted it gets.

Why have a prisoner clean highways instead of a free person?

Prisoner: $.25/hour
Free Person" $10+ per hour, and they still need supervision even if not armed.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
October 16th, 2012 at 10:37:33 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Is 8 correct predictions in row between 2 choices that impressive?



Its certainly not unimpressive. Its spanned a period
of 32 years, you act like it spans a period of two weeks.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
October 16th, 2012 at 11:02:01 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Its certainly not unempressive. Its spanned a period
of 32 years, you act like it spans a period of two weeks.



Yeah, but chance alone you average 4 correct out of 8. I don' see how years matter, just the number of predictions made. 8000 correct predictions of something is impressive. 8, not so much.

I'm not taking anything away from them; they may be the best model for this sort of thing out there.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
October 16th, 2012 at 11:08:25 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Yeah, but chance alone you average 4 correct out of 8. I don' see how years matter,



I guess we'll see in 3 weeks. My money is on the
college brainiacs. There's always hope, though.
Maybe Romney will strangle a live puppy on
national TV or something. Obama could do that
and his fan's wouldn't care at all. Their KoolAid
is the strong stuff..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Scotty71
Scotty71
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
October 17th, 2012 at 12:24:22 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146



In this event, you can provide a wage that is at least a good living wage if you have two people in the household working, you'd base the wage for one on the current average cost of living, by State.



The two income family is the worst thing that has happened to America. 100% household employment is what we should strive for. This is where the "rich" need to be "taxed" if you will AND this is where health insurance/HC reform will do the most good. I will start a thread for this topic because it is too much to expand on here.

HUD currently subsidizes housing to almost no rent to accomplish exactly this right. What needs to change? My widowed mother ran a HUD housing unit in a small town for years. Its one of the poorest county in the midwest and wages are low, so depending on # kids rent was anywhere from $8- $180 a month with utilities included and in and at most HUD complexes cable TV is a utility or at least an inalienable right.

I'm sorry but I often work 70-90 hours a week, why should I subsidize any wage especially if they aren't working my hours and taking my risks. We have safety nets to prevent starvation so WTF is a good living wage anyway? Is it acquiring goods, that's mainly what people want regardless of what they tell you. They want stuff because that's what people in America value!

Quote: Mission146



1.) The Government will find you work as soon as possible in a period of unemployment via a Government supported job listing site. That one lists oneself on the job site is mandatory if one is unemployed and receiving welfare. If you refuse, you lose, as in you're cut from the program.



I like this idea but you have to juice job creation and hiring to even need a job board. If you cut the bennies for non compliance does that include no housing benni's like hud or section 8? As far as the job site goes the Govt doesn't usually compete with private industry (Monster, jobs.com). Is the govt going to screen applicants better? What about the people who get fired at jobsites and newspapers because the government undercut their industry?

Quote: Mission146


2.) Social works. If you're not working, and are on welfare, then you are required, for each individual, to volunteer 40 hours per week accomplishing some sort of Social Good. It could be picking up highways, organizing donations, working on humanitarian efforts for other countries, helping organize donations to troops if we have troops abroad, the list goes on.



Hell yeah! I love this but you will be accused of slavery and this is so hard to enforce regionally but you are on the right track. I would goes as far as to phase out lowest level govt jobs and transition unemployed welfare recipients in. All of this works well in urban areas but there is more poverty than you can imagine in rural America and less access to transportation to complete these service projects. You have to be careful that you dont grow govt in this dept so you turn this over to the Red Cross' and Habitat's of the world.

Quote: Mission146



3.) Mandatory drug testing. If you are on welfare, you will be required to be subjected to random drug screening (at home) and there will also be a mandatory test once every six months during the time you are on welfare. If you are new to welfare, you must immediately submit to drug testing, that will dissuade even those who are not on welfare from doing drugs...just in case. In the event that a would-be welfare recipient tests positive, he has thirty days to submit a test, at his own expense, proving that he is clean. In the event he is unable to do so, or an active recipient fails the screening, they are cut off.[q/]

What about the alcoholics, they are a bigger problem I bet. You know some are on disability for alcoholism right? Please tell me you would boot them off disability and put em on short term welfare. I say no money no drinky.

Quote: Mission146



4.) Wage Subsidization. If there comes a time when, given the wage increase, businesses can conclusively prove that it is simply too much (and are willing to open the books to an auditor), then the business may have wages subsidized on a sliding scale for up to one calendar year by which the Government will determine how much relief a business needs and pay the difference.



You lose me here. Dont over complicate and just make it a tax credit I think... In your model as an biz owner can I opt out and close up shop?... lay people off? Dangerous ground here unless I'm missing something.
I run a private investment company, is the gov't going to tell me how much money I need to lose before I can lay people off or cut their wages? I need clarification. is this small biz temporary welfare... who audits and decides what is a fair margin?

BTW just to get very specific I pay my admin 56k a year+401k match+14 days vacation+12 sick days+disability insurance+employment taxes...is that a good wage? Next year after her wages are paid I should clear over 300k lets say... I'm not looking for ways to pay her less because she is very good... but in 2015 if things go bad and I only clear 200k do I deny her her her normal 3%-5% COLA(union lovers say no) & at what point am I justified to reduce her pay by 30% if ever. Whats my fair wage given the fact that I took the risk of starting my own company (quit a job), burned a shitload of capital (all of my savings and most investments) and flirted with 7 figure lawsuits( over non competes) to get it going? Can I get the govt (Dems) to guarantee she doesn't take a better job and leave me in the lurch...hell no. Great wages & job security for the serfs w/out loyalty to the King....that NEVER has worked. Its my risk to keep talent but you have to understand that in the private sector investors are bearing the risk and you want to potentially tax them more for zero incremental reward. When you gamble do you want to just break even or do you want a payoff for putting your money at risk, Its like paying 3:2 on the 4&10... you might make some money but the downside risk doesnt necessarily warrant the bet.

Farm subsidies you forgot to mention- I would want to support small farms more and cargill a lot less, but the smaller need to act bigger via cooperatives- End subsidies completely and fund loans to seed farming cooperatives with via community banks. You have to have a strategy for jobs in rural America too!

Stay tuned for health care...
when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." — E.E. Cummings
Scotty71
Scotty71
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
October 17th, 2012 at 1:20:49 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146



5.) Universal Health Care-Denmark Model. Health Care Costs are ridiculous, and you have these pharmaceutical companies fronting the insurance companies ridiculous three-figure amounts for a certain prescription that they sell for pennies on the dollar...and yet still at a small profit...in other countries. [q/]

I can live with UHC...but again you are dictating profits. Companies will charge what the market will bear, its very simple. The drugs and equipment they sell overseas aren't necessarily manufactured in an FDA compliant (very expensive) facility in the US either. America doest get to pay Africa prices because revenue has to come from somewhere unless you want to put Pfizer and Merk out of biz. You could shift the most expensive R&D to universities but again that is meddling and will cost jobs and the government cannot allocate capital a fraction as well as a profit driven entity. Dont forget the Healthcare sector is 17% of the S&P 500 and if you crush the pharma companies the pensions and mutual funds (in your 401k too) will get crushed along with the overpaid executives you likely think are the problem. Rev growth will be purely secular & you will remove most of the profit motive that funds future projects. Investments are my area and in addition to stocks I invest in private health care companies and clinical startup biotech too so I am sensitive to this area. I (we) have over 7.2 million directly invested in startups in the following areas (stem cell production for diabetes and cancer research, wound care management technology, medical records efficiency and drug delivery/efficacy). These investment if all the stars align could pay off 200x... is that too much, what is a fair return on my capital when we can lose our entire investment. Investment decisions are driven by competing projects (other projects). If HC doesn't pay off anymore the investment $$ chasing returns will go where its treated best.

Money always goes where it is treated best, casino's & governments notwithstanding.

St Jude Medical for example makes heart valves, pacemakers etc... they spent 704MM on R&D last year, greater than 10% of their revenues...what kind on long term return can the expect on that money. If their Implantable defibrillators (about 40k) work fine now what incentive exists to make a better one that saves more lives. Make them reduce prices by 15%..... Do they comfortably have 700MM a year now to invest in R&D when rev goes from 5.5BB to 4.6BB but their EBITDA goes from 1.2BB to 600MM?

when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." — E.E. Cummings
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
Joined: May 14, 2012
October 17th, 2012 at 7:18:23 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

1.) You may be right, but anything can happen in the world of business, and God bless those who do go into business. We have jobs that would not otherwise exist for those people being in-business, and they take risks that other people are either unable or unwilling (is there a mirror nearby for me to gaze into?) to take. They are to be both saluted and respected as pillars of our community. Another thing, regardless of what Obama says, YES, they built that.

2.) I agree with your perspective, but these policies need not come at the expense of the low-level worker who is then branded a social outcast and pariah for either being a low-level worker or on welfare. These are people who may well have been dedicated and loyal employees who understood that the business could not afford to pay them more, but stuck around because they respected the small business owner and were otherwise treated well.

Here's the thing, we get into something like Social Security and they get a cost-of-living increase indexed by an inflational measurement that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I believe they came up with either 1.6% or 1.8% today. I'm going to look at average gas costs and I'm getting nearly 8% over last year. We're going to be looking at 2.5-3% on food prices. That's where most of this money goes!

I'm not saying that we are able to adjust accordingly right now, but what I am wondering about is why we don't adjust the wages for minimum wage according to even the poor inflation metric. You're talking about people who are, at a minimum, at least contributing to the Social Security fund, and they also have to use gas to get to work in the majority of cases.

The other thing is that businesses can't be left to do this completely by themselves. This was proven in the Industrial Revolution when you are talking about having horrendously unsafe working conditions, child labour, obscene working hours...especially for physical jobs...no safety nets for someone permanently severely injured and unable to work, just that person's bad luck.

I'm not saying that all of the companies would rape the employees, I've talked to you enough to know that you are a good human being who would not do that, but some of them would, no question about it. No minimum wage? Well, $2.00/hour is better than $0.00/hour, so yeah, they'd find enough people desperately hungry enough to staff, it'd be inhumane, but sure.

I readily admit it works the opposite way with the Unions. They're horrible, especially since over 50% of them are supposedly civil service positions. I don't mind taking a hit if it's necessary, if our revenues return to 2008 levels, then I probably need to return to my 2008 salary.



A lot of points, and a busy day- so to quickly comment:
1. I certainly don't, and would imagine that most people don't agree any "low level" worker is a pariah or social outcast! If you contribute, you're all right in my book!
2. I think many organizations realize that paying the lowest possible wage isn't in their best interest. I don't think McDonald's does that most of the time. I do feel businesses, especially smaller ones, sometimes need the flexibility to do what they need to do.

Anyway, need to get back to it- I appreciate the different perspectives!
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
  • Jump to: