RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival

RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

candystripper -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 11:06:00 AM)
quote: And why wouldn't you be - your definition of 'fair' is when someone who has more gives it in taxes to people like you. (Exerpt.) Mercnbeth People like me? What does the welfare queen have in common with the guy making $249,999? What does the single mom making $10 an hour with two UMs in day care have in common with either of them? Why make assumptions about my financial status? I've already told you -- my tax policies aren't chosen for their beneficial effect on me personally. quote: What I admitted to is that lawyers don't contribute anything but conflict and self perpetuating litigation. However I do agree with you that they don't have any moral compass and only serve their payment source. (Excerpt.) Mercnbeth If you want to argue about whether lawyers contribute to the GNP Merc, we can. If you simply want to indulge in whining (or bragging?) about needing and being able to afford legal services s'more, I think you've ridden that pony to death in other threads. http://www.collarchat.com/m_2064487/mpage_1/key_lawyer%252Chatred/tm.htm#2064637 I remind you, though, that these lawyers you so heartially despise will be facing the same increases in tax burden as yourself. A law firm is a business as well, Merc. quote: The overall policy does not make economic or social sense. His plan is to put the burden on any company or individual who has generated income or value and use the revenue to create start up businesses. Start-ups fail 90% of the time. New technology take years and millions to initiate. There is no logic to a 'trickle up' because it gives money access to people who, without a government program, would not qualify. How did that work for the mortgage industry? (Excerpt.) Mercnbeth Merc, a business or individual who generates only $249,999 is still producing value and will still pay taxes. If I recall my macro-economics 101 at all, a stimulus to consumer spending is a well-tested way to avert a Depression and stimulate an economy which has gone too far south to wait for new capital gains to put the brakes on inflation. How do you manage to blame Obama for the current economic crisis? What policy did he implement that allowed mortgage lenders to ignore credit-worthiness? How did he contribute to the specious 'flipping' of homes and over-inflation of their value? What part do you lay at the door of the Republicans? quote: Try providing an logical alternative result instead of rhetoric. 'Ideal' is not reality and there are people who have more because they've worked for it and earned it. There are people who don't have anything for the same reasons. Currently there is nothing in the way for an individual to achieve either result. (Excerpt.) Mercnbeth How often can I say this? I do not come to my decisions on tax policy based on personal animus or greed. I do so based on what I believe is best for the country* as a whole at the time.* And while we're on the subject, I certainly concede there is 'nothing wrong' with a guy who has the moon and the stars tucked away. Bill Gates doesn't give me any heartburn. I do, however, have issues with withholding assistance from those who have nothing. What do you propose we do with UMs, with seniors, with whole families, especially as the economy suffers and falters? Do we just let people starve on the streets? Does government....the taxpayers...the citizens...have no stake in their well-being? Merc...do you really think it was as much fun to be wealthy in American during the Great Depression as it was during the Roaring Twenties? Do you really want to have to hire bodyguards when you go shopping? Shall we start alllowing South American insurers to sell kidnap and ransom insurance here in the US? Is your business selling only to the very wealthy, Merc? Is it selling something they will need day in and day out? Do you hold any patents or other protection from competition? If you truely feel you have no stake in the opportunities and well-being of the poor, perhaps you have some in the middle class, at least as customers? Perhaps your position in the financial landscape isn't quite as well-fixed as you tell yourself. quote: The problem is that during the 'good times' they committed to a pension plan for their workers - (Fairly negotiated - I'm not saying it's wrong) that they can not now afford. (Excerpt.) Mercnbeth Well., this too is a hijack Merc. You don't think GM could count how many retirees it had? Or was going to have? Apart from any recent losses in the pension fund, the ONLY reason a pension would not fully perform is that over time, the EMPLOYER UNDERFUNDED IT. You admit this is true about social security ('the numbers just don't work') so admit it's also true of businesses. Greedy for a 'healthy bottom line' GM may have pension liabilities it postponed making deposits to fund -- but Merc, those obligations were fixed, known and current. Fancy accounting cannot replace cash deposits, and if you're right and GM's pension fund cannot pay its obligations, then I hope the feds go over the books with a fine-toothed comb and send someone to jail. Knowingly underfunding a pension is a crime. Don't you think possibly GM is in trouble because it failed to compete adequately with imports? Or that possibly it should have had a rainy day fund so we as taxpayers don't have to bail it out? Why do GM officers make so damned much salary, etc., if they cannot run a business well enough to fund even fixed, existing obligations? Why would it be acceptable for GM to walk away from its accrued* obligations to pensioners and vested employees as a means of bailing out the company? Surely this isn't how you run your business?* quote: How exactly did this, or does this, happen? How were "commoners" prevented from doing anything? What is a "commoner". You make it sound like a commoner is someone who can't be held responsible for their own fate and wants to sit on their ass expecting the government to take care of them. What hurdle isn't in my way that is in the way of your "commoner"? And if, my 'wealth' or my income and assets are a goal - how will any of Obama's programs effect that result? (Excerpt.) Mercnbeth Depends on the -- holds nose* -- commoner in question, Merc. May as well ask how come you don't make as much as Bill Gates? I presume circumstance and talent went into the mix.* I have no clue where you get the notion that Obama wants to put programs in place that will deter people from working. I have seen no suggestion of it. I have seen him take positions about access to health care, access to education and higher education, etc. which I find appealing precisely because I feel they will aid in upward mobility. I simply do not understand your reasoning Merc. Tax policies that have been in place since the 1900's suddenly offend you because Obama has selected some which might drive up your tax bill? Is that really how you think Obama should decide tax policy? By making sure that those that have still get richer no matter what? I guess we know now the basic reason why we disagree, Merc, because it's not the tax policy I* want.* candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

Mercnbeth -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 12:02:27 PM)
quote: I do, however, have issues with withholding assistance from those who have nothing. The sum of of difference - you see this as "withholding assistance", I see this as taking responsibility for myself and expecting similar from everyone else. Who has "nothing"? You, (and that's the royal you) are what you earned; whether successful or failure and everything in between. It is the government's responsibility to provide a "pursuit of happiness" NOT happiness. Decide to pursue failure and you should be allowed to do so without looking to encumber someone who didn't fail. quote: Why do GM officers make so damned much salary, etc., if they cannot run a business well enough to fund even fixed, existing obligations? My point and reasoning for my position that they should be allowed to FAIL! If Obama were running for election prior to the industrial revolution would he be in support of bailing out buggy whip and horse tack manufacturers? Companies have normal life expectancies some should be allowed to die or at least taken off expensive tax payer paid life support systems that are draining viable corporations. quote: Depends on the -- holds nose* -- commoner in question, Merc. May as well ask how come you don't make as much as Bill Gates? I presume circumstance and talent went into the mix.* I have no clue where you get the notion that Obama wants to put programs in place that will deter people from working. It was YOU who used the reference "commoner" ergo the use of quotes. Having to hold your nose at your own reference seems a bit neurotic. The question was - how are any of Obama's policies or plans going to put people to work. You can also be the first to answer how and who will pay for his social engineering plans. No - it isn't the tax policies that offend me, its the illogic of combining massive spending toward social engineering and redistributing wealth while encumbering the very people who contribute the most as we speak. If you want to tell me how that will work in 2009 versus raising irrelevant historical references or making comparing me to Bill Gates, I'm here to listen.

candystripper -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 12:58:03 PM)
quote: No - it isn't the tax policies that offend me, its the illogic of combining massive spending toward social engineering and redistributing wealth while encumbering the very people who contribute the most as we speak. If you want to tell me how that will work in 2009 versus raising irrelevant historical references or making comparing me to Bill Gates, I'm here to listen. (Excerpt.) Mercnbeth Fair enough, Merc. This is where I see the country as a whole, with what information I've gathered myself that I trust: I think we are in the very deep water. I think another Depression may be coming, and that the middle class is imperiled. I say this partially because no one -- and I mean no one -- whom I personally know has both a reasonable salary and job security. People who own their own businesses won't fire themselves, of course, but when the landlord locks up the joint they are just as unemployed. I don't see this as purely a product of our recent economic woes; IMO, it has its roots in the stupid 'trickle down economics' of Reagan and the concurrent bloating of the federal government, as well as most state and local jurisdictions. There are a variety of reasons this has happened, some social, some purely economic, and frankly, now -- at the present time -- I am less concerned about whom to blame than what should be done next. I am more than ready to skip the 'tinkering' shit the Federal Reserve usually does as well as the economic growth allegedly caused by a reduction in the capital gains tax so that wealthy people have incentives to save rather than consume, and move directly to the fire exits. What do I want done? I want existing social programs to be adequately funded to meet what will undoubtedly be new client bases as the economy spirals down. I want taxes raised, and in the short run, I want the wealthy to bear more of that increase than the middle class or the poor. The wealthy will continue to spend in any event, but the middle class and poor will stop unless stimulated. I want well-thought-out and well-run new programs implemented by the government to put people to work, so that fewer families are displaced. I also want the end to the era of unbridled corporate greed. Enough with the gouging and bail outs and ridiculously high salaries and golden parachuts and all that crap. Time to allow people to buy their drugs in Canada in order to force the pharamecutical companies to lower their prices. Time to pass legislation that forces auto makers who want to sell in this country to carry at least one model with reasonable gas mileage and longevity. Time to stop the bloating in health care costs in part by reducing the prices that health care providers may charge to people, particularly the uninsured. I want the tuition costs of higher education reduced. I want the G.I. Bill restored. I want our military service men and women to be paid a living wage. I want to stop spending money on the wars in Iraq and Afganistan in conformity with a modest but prudent foreign policy. There are many other government programs I also want trimmed or done away with altogether as well. There's a great deal I want, and most of it will benefit the middle class or allow the poor upward mobility. There's a great deal more I want, but that should give you an idea of why I support Obama and his tax policies. candystripper [sm=pole.gif] P.S. Hey, been doing this all day now....gonna take a break awhile but I'm not ignoring you Merc.

TreasureKY -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 4:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMaam quote: John McCain's educational background: McCain struggled in naval academy, finishing 894th out of 899 students, and was rejected by the U.S. National War College until his family intervened with the Secretary of the Navy. Perhaps you are more intellectual in your approach to the subject, and for that reason, I hope you will use the available information to decide for yourself. I am, and I have, thank you. Rather than accepting The Star article you quoted above as an accurate picture, you might consider the following: John McCain attended The United States Naval Academy from 1954 until 1958. I'd like to point out that his attendance at the US Naval Academy was for his undergraduate degree and that admission requirements there are a bit more stringent that those of Occidental College where Obama attended but apparently did not receive his degree. Interestingly enough, I've been unable to find any additional information on Obama's attendance at Columbia University other than the barest information you've relayed here. While John McCain did graduate only 894th out of 899 students (And by the way, what was Obama's graduation standing from Columbia?) from the US Naval Academy, I don't really consider that to be a major problem. He did graduate and that, in itself, is saying much of an institution with that high a level of academic and physical requirements... quote: ... courses are heavy in history and engineering ... students also train for their future careers ... they are required to complete basic training the summer before school starts. During their collegiate career, attendees train in firearms, combat, and equipment as well. Just check out the steps required for admission to the US Naval Academy. I don't imagine Occidental College or Columbia University, either one, require a Senatorial or Presidential nomination, interview, physical, and fitness exam. I'm not quite sure about the author's assertion above that McCain was rejected by the U.S. National War College until his family intervened with the Secretary of the Navy. Considering the short-shrift that is given to McCain's background, I suspect there is more to the story. I can tell you that attendance to the War College isn't like applying for any other college. It is graduate level study and attendance is by selection and appointment within the military: quote: Mid-level and senior military officers who are likely to be promoted to the most senior ranks are selected to study at the War College in preparation for higher staff and command positions. By the time McCain attended the War College, he had spent 15 years in the Navy including the 5 1/2 years he was a prisoner of war. I find it doubtful that his family had to intervene on his behalf... Lieutenant Commander McCain was fairly well known from first report in the NY Times of his disappearance in Vietnam. A firsthand account of his time as a POW was published in US News and World Report shortly after his release and in it, he mentions having a conversation with Henry Kissinger. This was hardly a 18 year old goof-off student whose daddy had to intercede to get him into college. If there was any question about McCain attending the War College, I suspect the Navy wasn't sure if he was even healthy enough to stay in the military. At any rate, after McCain received his Master's Degree from the War College, he spent another seven years or so in the Navy, four years of which he served as the Naval Senate Liason. Shortly after leaving the Navy, he was elected as a US Representative for Arizona. Lemme see... I think by that time Obama was working for his Bachelor's degree. [;)] Three years or so after becoming a US Representative, McCain was elected to the US Senate in 1986 and has been there ever since. Twenty-three years serving in the Navy as an officer and commander, and nearly twenty-six years serving in the US Congress. So... Obama graduated from Harvard Law school magna cum laude, worked six years as a civil rights attorney for a small law firm, did some community work, served in the Illinois State Senate for seven years, and has spent almost four year in the US Senate. shrugs quote: ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMaam I think it more sad that given the current state we find ourselves in, that this is a close ellection at all. I find it astonishing based on all available information, the qualifications of both candidates, the current mess we find ourselves at home and internationally, that the man who expresses a fantastic understanding of the issues (national and international) is running only slightly ahead of the incumbent party in power. M Perhaps a lot of people want something more than just "understanding".

samboct -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 7:36:51 PM)
"Well., this too is a hijack Merc. You don't think GM could count how many retirees it had? Or was going to have? Apart from any recent losses in the pension fund, the ONLY reason a pension would not fully perform is that over time, the EMPLOYER UNDERFUNDED IT. You admit this is true about social security ('the numbers just don't work') so admit it's also true of businesses. Greedy for a 'healthy bottom line' GM may have pension liabilities it postponed making deposits to fund -- but Merc, those obligations were fixed, known and current. Fancy accounting cannot replace cash deposits, and if you're right and GM's pension fund cannot pay its obligations, then I hope the feds go over the books with a fine-toothed comb and send someone to jail. Knowingly underfunding a pension is a crime. Don't you think possibly GM is in trouble because it failed to compete adequately with imports? Or that possibly it should have had a rainy day fund so we as taxpayers don't have to bail it out? Why do GM officers make so damned much salary, etc., if they cannot run a business well enough to fund even fixed, existing obligations? Why would it be acceptable for GM to walk away from its accrued* obligations to pensioners and vested employees as a means of bailing out the company? Surely this isn't how you run your business?* " Umm- Candystripper? Merc has a point here. You're bashing GM unfairly (or all of Detroit for that matter.) Pensions were negotiated with workers which made assumptions about longevity and health care costs. The idea of retiring at 65 came from Bismarck, who picked the number because most people were dead. I think when GM was negotiating retirement packages in the 70s, the average male was dead by 68. There's a world of difference between needing to fund someone pension for 3 years and for 20 years. Couple that with the rise in health care costs- driven largely by increased malpractice rates and defensive medicine, and the blank check that GM wrote for pensions was a heck of a lot bigger than anyone at the time realized it would be. US car manufacturers were also at a disadvantage relative to the Japanese firms back in the 1980s such as Honda for two reasons (this was from an article I read 20 years ago- the conclusions stayed with me, but not the author's name.) higher labor costs (in part due to pensions and an aging labor force) and cost of capital. When Honda decided to develop the Civic, I think it cost $400M. The Japanese firm was able to borrow money from keiretsu's at a far lower rate than US commercial banks charged which enabled Honda to utilize far more robotics in the manufacture of the car and come up with tighter tolerances than a US car built with more hand labor. When coupled with the higher costs of labor, GM was at an extreme disadvantage relative to the Japanese firms. Its not that GM didn't want to build better cars- Honda etc. were not burdened with legacy factories and labor relationships that hamstrung US manufacturers. Over the years, the gap has narrowed- Japanese labor costs are now comparable with US costs, but the Japanese firms often set up plants where the workers are far younger- hence reduced costs for pensions and lower salaries. US firms have had to scramble and generally cannot update their designs as rapidly as the Japanese firms. Nevertheless, some US firms remain quite innovative (the minivan was first developed by Chrysler) and the Mustang remains popular globally due to appealing aesthetics, decent handling, and good bang/buck. Compared to the financial rewards that people in the financial industry received, GM and Detroit are a bunch of pikers these days. On a separate note- the argument that lawyers only do what their clients ask is disengenuous at best. In a business relationship, there are at least two sides involved. Certainly a tax attorney is not under any obligation to find or manufacture loopholes for a client. The client is free to make this request- and the attorney is free to politely say I don't do that type of work- it's unethical. Let's not mix up the requirements that defense attorneys have to defend clients as best they can regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, a tax attorney is under no such obligation. Nor are attorneys who file frivolous suits attempting to win large awards for clients who have suffered injury at the hands of physicians- claiming malpractice under any obligation to do so- other than the desire to turn a buck. Sam

candystripper -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 8:25:30 PM)
quote: You're bashing GM unfairly (or all of Detroit for that matter.) Pensions were negotiated with workers which made assumptions about longevity and health care costs. The idea of retiring at 65 came from Bismarck, who picked the number because most people were dead. I think when GM was negotiating retirement packages in the 70s, the average male was dead by 68. There's a world of difference between needing to fund someone pension for 3 years and for 20 years. Couple that with the rise in health care costs- driven largely by increased malpractice rates and defensive medicine, and the blank check that GM wrote for pensions was a heck of a lot bigger than anyone at the time realized it would be. (Excerpt.) samboct Well, I respectfully disagree. Many businesses and insurance companies rewarded employees with pensions or offered annuities for life after age 65. Yes, life expectancy is not what it was thought to be in in 1970..but that is nearly half a century ago now. GM had time to adjust its pension fund contributions upwards or renegotiate its pension package with employees...but to simply walk away from the obligations it undertook to its employees is wrong and is hard to defend successfully. Health care is in the main a smoke screen. Even assuming GM offered its retirees health care as part of its pension plans, which is a rather unusual practice, again, it had time to renegotiate, correct and fully fund those obligations. GM would have been funding the cost of purchasing health insurance, not paying the health care costs directly, and presumably had the market power to shop for a better deal than most businesses and individuals have had. quote: US car manufacturers were also at a disadvantage relative to the Japanese firms back in the 1980s such as Honda for two reasons (this was from an article I read 20 years ago- the conclusions stayed with me, but not the author's name.) higher labor costs (in part due to pensions and an aging labor force) and cost of capital. (Excerpt.) samboct Let's assume that everything you say is true. Then why didn't the GM officers transition into other areas of the economy or wind up the business if they were simply unable to compete with the imports? Why should a big business be permitted to fail to plan for 30 or 40 years and then get a government cash infusion, while a small business has to sink or swin on its own? If GM failed, then it failed. quote: Certainly a tax attorney is not under any obligation to find or manufacture loopholes for a client. The client is free to make this request- and the attorney is free to politely say I don't do that type of work- it's unethical. (Excerpt.) samboct Finding a 'loophole' is precisely what a tax lawyer is trained and paid to do. Why is it unethical? I think citizens have a patriotic duty to pay whatever tax they owe, but no one has a duty to pay more than that. If planning techniques allow a business or wealthy individual to lower their tax liability, what is unethical about the assignment? Is it also unethical IYO for a patent attorney to tweak a patent application so his client can compete with a new product? Is it unethical for businesses to hire lobbyists to advance their interests? candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

samboct -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (11/1/2008 7:24:03 AM)
Candystripper Useful debate- had to go and dig out some more info found here- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64599-2005Apr18.html Basically the cost of providing the pensions and health insurance skyrocketed which put GM underwater. Accounting rules in place at the time did not require these pensions to show up on the balance sheet, but UAW negotiated well- apparently too well. Claiming that GM walked away from its obligations is like blaming a rock for not producing enough blood when you squeeze it. Allowing GM to fail? Well, at the end of the day, that may cost the taxpayer more money since currently GM is funding health care insurance and pensions on over a million folks who have retired. Take away GM's contribution and what happens next? Seems to me that bailing out GM really does help support the working class whereas bailing out AIG seems to have largely supported investors who took too many risks, along with some very wealthy executives. And in terms of GM transitioning into other areas of the economy- well, GM's financing division got spun off because it was helping to support much of the company and the folks running the show didn't want to be tied to GMs manufacturing arm. I don't know how much of this spin off was driven by banking regulations as well. In terms of tax loopholes- I think it was Rockefeller who pointed out that since his returns (this was back in the days of Standard Oil) were going to be carefully scrutinized, in order to maintain a sense of leadership, his the lawyers and accountants preparing his returns would not seek out loopholes or anything even remotely questionable- he would follow the intent of the tax code. Yes, corporate lawyers came to him and said that if we took x, y, z deductions, his tax return could be reduced dramatically. He said no. Clearly, Bill Gates is not cut from the same cloth....I have no sympathy for any rich SOB that bellyaches how much they pay in taxes since generally it's a lower percentage than I do (and I don't have a six figure income) when everything is added in- and since they've benefited more from the infrastructure that's allowed them to amass this wealth, it's only fair that they get to pay for it. Most of the calls for tax "fairness" are akin to going to a restaurant, ordering a burger and a beer, and being asked to divide the check evenly with the guy who got steak, lobster and champagne. In terms of patents- well, I do a bit of work with patents and patent attorneys and the idea that a patent attorney would help "tweak" a patent is rather laughable. There are two approaches to patents- 1) write a crafted patent that can't be challenged, or 2) write anything good enough to get through the patent office and the real test is whether it withstands a lawsuit. But patent lawsuits are often nuclear warfare- the cost of the lawsuits is so high that a successful product loses money. For small firms, having a patent is often a license to lose your shirt- and that was a comment from an entrepeneur who had lost his company while successfully defending his firms patent- the cost of the lawsuit bankrupted the firm. The sad fact is today, the patent office is so undermanned (we agree- thank you Ronald Reagan) that overlapping patents are being issued constantly- which means that patents are no longer worth as much as they used to be. Companies are now returning to keeping trade secrets- it's less expensive. But at the end of the day- the patent snafu has made it harder to start a small business. And this is where I really disagree with Merc's focus on the redistribution of wealth as hampering small business growth and creation. It's not that the government has taxed the life out of small businesses- its that the infrastructure needed to create small businesses, education, scientific research, patents, reasonable health care costs etc. are in such disrepair. Taxes are a small part of the problem. (OK, the drunken sailor approach to funding/canceling the tax credits and subsidies of the wind power industry did kind of clobber that industry. But to decry subsidies for wind power ignores the enormous gifts made to the fossil fuel industries.....) Sam

candystripper -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (11/1/2008 8:16:29 AM)
quote: Accounting rules in place at the time did not require these pensions to show up on the balance sheet....(Exerpt.) samboct I cannot imagine what FASB a company as large as GM could possibly have relied on to keep its current pension funding obligations off the books. Surely that was a significant expense, probably as much as 10% of the labor costs. However, even assuming that some fancy accounting permitted it, it was still WRONG not to book th expense. It gave a false picture of GM's bottom line to investors and it failed to reveal to investors and employees alike that GM wasn't keeping pace with its obligations regarding the pension. So, now the want to blame the cost of pension funding for the failure of the company? No dice. The officers and directors knew damned well there was an elephant in the living room, and if they failed to disclose to over-inflate their performance, then they should be prosecuted, along with their scumbags accountants. It is precisely this sort of shi-nan-a-gins which led to the demise of the public accounting firms over the past 20 years or so...when I began practicing law, they were the 'Big 8'; I am fairly sure they were once they 'Big 10'; now how many remain? Three? candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

samboct -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (11/1/2008 8:41:29 AM)
Candystripper Check the article-benefits paid in the future weren't required to show up on the current balance sheet back in the 50s. This is not a new problem, and has had a long gestation period. Your comments about the executives of the time not realizing the problem is from the benefit of hindsight- they didn't realize the increase in longevity and health care costs. There's a difference between peoples actions as evil (I think some of the fraud that the current financial industry has indulged in probably qualifies along with the meltdown of companies like Enron) and stupidity. It's the difference between Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Bush II is just a moron at the end of the day, and I have a hard time thinking of him as evil. Reagan and Bush 1 on the other hand...... Sam

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.076172E-02