AZhitman wrote:1) OK, who draws that line? You? What's a "big business"? Let's hear your idea, because my "contractor" example might surprise you.

Do we really have to get into corp. law and taxation? Depends on the company, profit margin, etc. There should be a mandated (severe) income penalty for CEOs who's companies lose jobs while posting profits. How about that for starters? Trying to get me to write corperate tax code right here right now isn't practical. I'm saying there should be a line, or at least a gradient.

AZhitman wrote:2) Interestingly, I come from a family that did just that. My dad was a HS dropout and now lives in a gated community and has no bills. Hard work and self-sacrifice, no handouts.

I've already said that no one 'took no handouts'. Everyone gets stuff from the government. Just because it's not a check doesn't mean it wasn't there. Give me a semi-brief history and I'll be glad to point out all the places where he got help from the government paid for by taxes.

AZhitman wrote:3) Overdramatized rare occurrence. Most wind up broke or bankrupt. If you don't like it, get on the Board of Directors.

Yes, it doesn't happen that much. More often, CEOs get massive bonuses for laying off thousands of people, while posting record profits, because, hey, now their making MOAR munyz. The Board is happy, why would they care?Completely unethical, and in the long run, detrimental to the company.

That's not to say my first example doesn't happen at least some, and when it does, it so far oversteps the lines of decency that it should warrent a felony.

AZhitman wrote:4) "exchanging 50 years of wear and tear on their bodies in 10 for it"... Who's to say the CEO isn't shortening his lifespan significantly through late hours and high stress?

"That's a bit much, but at least he's producing something for it." Really? What doe she produce? Is he creating jobs? Generating economic stimulus?

Yes, actually. The NFL employs tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. Everything from apparel manufacture (my friend works at a T-shirt printing company, and always cheers for 'local' teams (Colts, Tigs, etc.) because it means if they go to a championship, he gets lots of overtime.) to security, to hosts, to vendors, etc. The Dolphins attendance has been lower in recent years cause they sucked. Bringing in talented players improves their play, brings in more people, and creates more jobs.

AZhitman wrote:Makes me wonder how many 20-somethings are still accepting $ from their parents in the form of car insurance, rent, room and board, laundry, utilities, tuition, etc...

They sure don't gripe and moan about that, especially if Mom and Dad keep forking it over.

I certainly did. I stopped accepting money from my parents long ago, which is why I'm taking a break from college and enlisting for a few years. To pay for the rest of college.

AZhitman wrote:Your theories are falling apart like wet toilet paper, my good friend.

A laughable claim, Childs. Truely laughable.

AZhitman wrote:Selling one's liberty, independence, and self-sufficiency is indentured servitude (or slavery).

I'd rather be broke and free than comfortable and bound.

By the way, the government doesn't have more money than we do. I'm certainly not trillions of dollars in debt.

Who said that paying taxes is selling your liberty? Honestly, peopletry look at this way too black and white. It's all gray, I'm just saying it should stray more toward government taxation and assistance to those who need it.

I said the government has more clout, not money. Having $2.5 Trillion/year does that. As for the debt, I agree it creates problems, but the U.S. government isn't about to default on it's loans anytime soon, and I've been reading Ken Fisher recently, and not paying down the debt has some serious advantages, actually.

JimmyMethod wrote:Do we really have to get into corp. law and taxation? Depends on the company, profit margin, etc. There should be a mandated (severe) income penalty for CEOs who's companies lose jobs while posting profits. How about that for starters? Trying to get me to write corperate tax code right here right now isn't practical. I'm saying there should be a line, or at least a gradient.

JimmyMethod wrote:Yes, it doesn't happen that much. More often, CEOs get massive bonuses for laying off thousands of people, while posting record profits, because, hey, now their making MOAR munyz. The Board is happy, why would they care?Completely unethical, and in the long run, detrimental to the company.

That's not to say my first example doesn't happen at least some, and when it does, it so far oversteps the lines of decency that it should warrent a felony.

Can you show me a statute that states corporations must provide jobs or one which limits what corporations can pay their CEO's?

JimmyMethod wrote:There should be a mandated (severe) income penalty for CEOs who's companies lose jobs while posting profits.

Colossal FAIL. That's WELFARE, not business. Companies do not exist to create jobs. Companies do not exist for the benefit of the workers. Are you seriously advocating CORPORATE WELFARE?

JimmyMethod wrote:I've already said that no one 'took no handouts'. Everyone gets stuff from the government. Just because it's not a check doesn't mean it wasn't there. Give me a semi-brief history and I'll be glad to point out all the places where he got help from the government paid for by taxes.

Sure he did. 21 years in the Navy earns someone those benefits. Beyond that, you'd be hard-pressed to think of any.

JimmyMethod wrote:Yes, it doesn't happen that much. More often, CEOs get massive bonuses for laying off thousands of people, while posting record profits, because, hey, now their making MOAR munyz. The Board is happy, why would they care?Completely unethical, and in the long run, detrimental to the company.

That's not to say my first example doesn't happen at least some, and when it does, it so far oversteps the lines of decency that it should warrent a felony.

Success = unethical? Criminal? Good God, son. Whatever they're feeding you at that college should wear off in 10 years.

Then again, you have some weird Robin Hood delusions that taking away from the CEO and giving to the high school dropout is athe panacea, so I'm not surprised.

JimmyMethod wrote:Yes, actually. The NFL employs tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. Everything from apparel manufacture (my friend works at a T-shirt printing company, and always cheers for 'local' teams (Colts, Tigs, etc.) because it means if they go to a championship, he gets lots of overtime.) to security, to hosts, to vendors, etc. The Dolphins attendance has been lower in recent years cause they sucked. Bringing in talented players improves their play, brings in more people, and creates more jobs.

More fail. The PLAYER employs no one. And if he does (landscaper, cook, housekeeper, personal trainer), those are the same people the CEO would employ as well. You're confusing the two. The player creates nothing. His $56M does NOT create more jobs unless he spends it.

JimmyMethod wrote:Who said that paying taxes is selling your liberty? Honestly, peopletry look at this way too black and white. It's all gray, I'm just saying it should stray more toward government taxation and assistance to those who need it.

The government is ill-equipped to "raise" people to maturity. I have no problem paying taxes, I do so gladly. I am fortunate to be in a low tax bracket, but that's because of my choices in life. I am saying your idea of government-sponsored distribution of wealth is tantamount to indentured servitude.

JimmyMethod wrote:I said the government has more clout, not money.

JimmyMethod wrote:The more money you have, the more percent return you get.

^ Exhibit A.

A few semesters of college does not an economist make.

Jimmy, I ain't saying the system is perfect. But claiming the government should be entrusted with our well-being runs counter to the rugged individualism that made this country great. Darwinism is alive and well in the economic realm, and you can't legislate away (or throw money at) people's poor choices.

One has to look no further than the first example of pork barrel legislation to understand the problems with allowing the government control of the purse strings.

audtatious wrote:Can you show me a statute that states corporations must provide jobs or one which limits what corporations can pay their CEO's?

There isn't one. There should be.

AZhitman wrote:
Colossal FAIL. That's WELFARE, not business. Companies do not exist to create jobs. Companies do not exist for the benefit of the workers. Are you seriously advocating CORPORATE WELFARE?

That's not corperate welfare, that's corperate regulation.Companies SHOULD exist for the benefit of the worker.Example: If companies could triple their profits and employ an 1/8th of the workers, doing so would cause an economic collapse.

Also, do you seriously value the bottom line of a company more than the welfare of the people? That's the most horrible thing I've ever heard. America wasn't founded on profits. Look through the constitution. It doesn't mention it anywhere, I assure you. It DOES however talk about PEOPLE... of by and for...

AZhitman wrote:Success = unethical? Criminal? Good God, son. Whatever they're feeding you at that college should wear off in 10 years.

Individual success at the expense of hundreds of other people is unethical. Yes. Net utility of a CEO making say... 4 million/year less and 500 employees making $8k more a year: Large increase.

I don't understand how you'd be happier to have one person make 10 million more a year at the expense of thousands of people being out of work.

AZhitman wrote:More fail. The PLAYER employs no one. And if he does (landscaper, cook, housekeeper, personal trainer), those are the same people the CEO would employ as well.

The player creates the entire industry. If the player isn't there, there's no game to go to, there's no stadium to run, there's no merchandise to sell.

Come on Greg, that one was just sloppy of you.

Anyway, I'm saying they are paid too much, but I'd rather see them paid a lot than a bad CEO.

AZhitman wrote:I am saying your idea of government-sponsored distribution of wealth is tantamount to indentured servitude.

And I'm saying I fail to see that leap in logic.

AZhitman wrote:^ Exhibit A.

A few semesters of college does not an economist make.

The cost of the national debt is expensive, and reduces the amount of our 2.5 tril/year we can spend since we have to pay off the interest. However, that doesn't mean the government doesn't have a LOT of investment potential e.g. tax incentives for new technologies, etc. My statement holds true. sry.

JimmyMethod wrote:There isn't one. There should be.

Post your sources that show doing this would result in a positive to the American economy.

corporations have 1 job and thats to post profits for their shareholders, there is no rule saying workers are to be treated any differently then they are now.

as for if the government should be trusted to make decisions in your life here is an example of why it doesn't work.

Im disabled, I cant work I live in a house that my grandparents bought for me and I pay the bills. The government sees fit to tell me that my living here rent free and on 500 bucks a month after insurance is taken out is too much and wants to repeatedly tell me that I am living beyond what is allowed.

now just fyi its impossible for me to make over 630bucks a month state and federal, and if i can work i lose whatever i make per month against what they send and if i make over the 630 total a month I lose my tens of thousands of dollars in insurance that are covering my hospital stays medical supplies etc,

the above is my actual life, my grandfather made his money on his own, my parents do the same, Im one of the mislabeled ppl "mooching" or living on your taxes but cant do more then barely exist without bringing in a lawyer and petitioning a social security judge to correct the asinine laws on the books because your federal government believes I might be making too much money.

thats is exactly why my government shouldnt EVER dictate to the masses what they can and cannot do with their money, what they see as reasonable (630bucks a month before insurance is taken out ) is in most of this country totally unlivable on.

JimmyMethod wrote:Companies SHOULD exist for the benefit of the worker.Example: If companies could triple their profits and employ an 1/8th of the workers, doing so would cause an economic collapse.

You can't be serious about this can you? I've owned a business and I've dealt with literally hundreds of small business owners. Incorporated and otherwise. Businesses exist, and rightly so, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders. They are the ones who risk the capital to make it all work.

The owners are the ones that make payroll every two weeks even to the extent of borrowing against their homes to do it. They are the ones that work 7 days a week just so the doors will be open next week, so the crew will be able to take their regular pay check home.

Once you've owned a business and made if work for a few years, you'll see it this way.

JimmyMethod wrote:There isn't one. There should be.

So rather than let supply and demand dictate the need for employees and salaries, we should regulate it? Where's the incentive to go into business then?

JimmyMethod wrote:That's not corperate welfare, that's corperate regulation.Companies SHOULD exist for the benefit of the worker.Example: If companies could triple their profits and employ an 1/8th of the workers, doing so would cause an economic collapse.

The capitalism that causes the desire for one to open a business is the very same one that creates the demand for jobs. one can't expect that a company open its doors to hire employees then be forced to try and create a product or offer a service in order to pay for their employees...

JimmyMethod wrote:Also, do you seriously value the bottom line of a company more than the welfare of the people? That's the most horrible thing I've ever heard. America wasn't founded on profits. Look through the constitution. It doesn't mention it anywhere, I assure you. It DOES however talk about PEOPLE... of by and for....

If oone does not care about the bottom line, then they will probably go under. In such a case, EVERYONE loses their jobs. America, the government wasn't founded on profits. It was founded on freedom. We should have the freedom to do business and freedom to make profits.

JimmyMethod wrote:Individual success at the expense of hundreds of other people is unethical. Yes. Net utility of a CEO making say... 4 million/year less and 500 employees making $8k more a year: Large increase..

While there is some validity here, regulation is not the answer. The disparity between CEO salaries and the average worker salaries is huge and the gap is ever growing. Capping a CEO salary isn't going to change the value of the workers they hire.

JimmyMethod wrote:I don't understand how you'd be happier to have one person make 10 million more a year at the expense of thousands of people being out of work.

You assume that making 10 million less means there will be thousands more jobs. Frankly, the prospect of being able to make more money (A CEO's level of success/compensation tends to be tied into the success of a company), which means they'll likely want to grow their company. If they are successful, more jobs are likely to be available.

C-Kwik wrote:The capitalism that causes the desire for one to open a business is the very same one that creates the demand for jobs. one can't expect that a company open its doors to hire employees then be forced to try and create a product or offer a service in order to pay for their employees...

Sure you can expect it because then the Gov't will mandate that everyone must have the "widget" by law in order for the now Gov't controlled company to provide a place of employment

Jimmy probably admires Hugo Chavez

Jager wrote:corporations have 1 job and thats to post profits for their shareholders, there is no rule saying workers are to be treated any differently then they are now.

as for if the government should be trusted to make decisions in your life here is an example of why it doesn't work.

Im disabled, I cant work I live in a house that my grandparents bought for me and I pay the bills. The government sees fit to tell me that my living here rent free and on 500 bucks a month after insurance is taken out is too much and wants to repeatedly tell me that I am living beyond what is allowed.

now just fyi its impossible for me to make over 630bucks a month state and federal, and if i can work i lose whatever i make per month against what they send and if i make over the 630 total a month I lose my tens of thousands of dollars in insurance that are covering my hospital stays medical supplies etc,

the above is my actual life, my grandfather made his money on his own, my parents do the same, Im one of the mislabeled ppl "mooching" or living on your taxes but cant do more then barely exist without bringing in a lawyer and petitioning a social security judge to correct the asinine laws on the books because your federal government believes I might be making too much money.

thats is exactly why my government shouldnt EVER dictate to the masses what they can and cannot do with their money, what they see as reasonable (630bucks a month before insurance is taken out ) is in most of this country totally unlivable on.

God bless you. While I'd love to see your income tripled, I know you're way too proud to take a handout, and for that, I salute you.



The government is NOT here to make sure its people are taken care of. THAT is the realm of the community, family, churches, civic groups and the kindness of strangers.

Jimmy, if you walk into a room, and 30 people tell you you have bird poop on your shirt, and you refuse to look, and you argue with them, then that's just delusional.

On a side note, capping CEO incomes is preposterous. Know what most CEO's do when their business is wildly successful and they've accomplished all they need to financially?

They diversify. They branch out. They start new businesses. They expand, create, and broaden - ALL of which creates more jobs.

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is a sure-fire way to create a class of zombie citizens, blindly groping in the dark for Uncle Sam's nipple.

If the workers tire of making $8 an hour, perhaps they needed to make different choices. I did. And I grew up in abject poverty.

Jimmy would approve of this:

“I think the American people want to elect a president who will solve their problems for them...” --- Barack Obama, Socialist and proponent of the Nanny Gov't

Patently Matt, I'm for that. Although by problems I'm referring to the recession, the war, unemployment, and too few prisons. Things that the government really should be solving. Maybe they will come out with more brainless legislation like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and push us over the edge. (Damn, I leaning a little right anymore, and I'm hating it.)

You see those as problems and I can show you others where the problems they see are related to not being able to afford a new car and a big house with their minimum wage job and 9th grade education or they have put themselves in the hole with credit card companies that they will never be able to "get out" of payments due to constantly poor decisions and spending habits.

Windfall tax the oil companies when the Gov't is making the major profits, additional taxes for corporations, billions upon billions sent to the UN to fight global poverty, press forth for more and more bio-fuels which increases costs for food which results in greater welfare requirements for the poor, carbon credits, the hell hole called Universal Health, etc...etc...etc... Great directions

I do agree with you in that the Gov't is not resolving issues that they should be. The feds are too busy stepping all over themselves and signing off on poor legislation to care anymore. When you lean to the right, lean into the fiscally conservative side instead of the spend-spend-spend side.

C-Kwik wrote:If oone does not care about the bottom line, then they will probably go under. In such a case, EVERYONE loses their jobs. America, the government wasn't founded on profits. It was founded on freedom. We should have the freedom to do business and freedom to make profits.

I never said profits should be ignored. I said it shouldn't be the only driving force.

The welfare of the people a company employees is as important as the companies profits.America is a collection of PEOPLE, not a collection of COMPANIES. People are what's important.

AZhitman wrote:Jimmy, if you walk into a room, and 30 people tell you you have bird poop on your shirt, and you refuse to look, and you argue with them, then that's just delusional.

I don't get this statement. Is it in reference to the fact that most/everyone here disagrees with me? The disagreement isn't about a statement of fact. It's about priorities. You're priorities are allowing some people to make lots of money while leaving others poor. My priorities are raising the median standard of living.

Believe me, my family has plenty of money. I also had friends from school that were woken up at night every few weeks from a drive-by on their block.

When I lived with my parents, I would have gladly lived in a much smaller house if it meant someone else didn't have to live in a bullethole ventilated shack.

audtatious wrote:Jimmy would approve of this:

“I think the American people want to elect a president who will solve their problems for them...” --- Barack Obama, Socialist and proponent of the Nanny Gov't

o_O...You'd rather have a president that... what? Created problems? It's kind of the president's job to solve the populous's problems.

JimmyMethod wrote:o_O...You'd rather have a president that... what? Created problems? It's kind of the president's job to solve the populous's problems.

You have the right to the persuit of happiness, it is not something the Gov't is supposed to provide you.

I'm still waiting on statistics that justify your points that your way is better for the people and the economy.

"For the economy"? By traditional indicators, other than perhaps, number of people below the poverty line, it probably would 'hurt' the economy.

But I've said all along, making sure people can eat and sleep safely is more important to me than the number of zeros at the end of a bank statement.

It isn't for you. That's fine. You have different priorities. I personally, I find your priorities morally objectionable, but I can't really do anything about how you feel.

JimmyMethod wrote:... The disagreement isn't about a statement of fact. It's about priorities. You're priorities are allowing some people to make lots of money while leaving others poor. My priorities are raising the median standard of living.

Jimmy, what's wrong with each person earning his place in society. That is the benefit of our way of life. The philosophy of "from each what he can offer, to each what he needs" government was tried. It lasted about 50 years before it collapsed into rubble.

And my point is, that's NOT the government's job.

"Allowing people to make lots of money while leaving others poor".

Yep. Pretty much. I say, live and let live. Isn't that the Lefties' battle cry?

Damn right it is. Until it doesn't suit their purposes, then it's a problem.

Can't have it both ways, something the left fails to comprehend.

rn79870 wrote:
Jimmy, what's wrong with each person earning his place in society. That is the benefit of our way of life. The philosophy of "from each what he can offer, to each what he needs" government was tried. It lasted about 50 years before it collapsed into rubble.

1.) It lasted for thousands of years in tribal societies.2.) I'm not advocating total communism. I'm advocating a balance. China, in 25 years, will be able to crush the U.S. economically because they have a fundimental advantage of blending free markets and socialist control of government spending.3.) The fall of Russian communism is a VERY indepth topic that we can discuss later, but there were several factors that started the ship sinking in the 30s that had nothing to do with communism.
Modified by JimmyMethod at 6:57 PM 4/29/2008

AZhitman wrote:And my point is, that's NOT the government's job.

"Allowing people to make lots of money while leaving others poor".

Yep. Pretty much. I say, live and let live. Isn't that the Lefties' battle cry?

Damn right it is. Until it doesn't suit their purposes, then it's a problem.

Can't have it both ways, something the left fails to comprehend.

Conservatives want 'fair' treatment for everyone, e.g. everyone is taxed the same, gets the same benefits, etc.Liberals want 'just' treatment for everyone, e.g. Those who need more help because they are disadvantaged, get more than those who don't need help.You're miss attributing the 'live and let live' concept. It's about self expression, identity, etc. (generally more social norming stuff). What I said above is more accurate.

JimmyMethod wrote:1.) It lasted for thousands of years in tribal societies.2.) I'm not advocating total communism. I'm advocating a balance. China, in 25 years, will be able to crush the U.S. economically because they have a fundimental advantage of blending free markets and socialist control of government spending.3.) The fall of Russian communism is a VERY indepth topic that we can discuss later, but there were several factors that started the ship sinking in the 30s that had nothing to do with communism.

China will be in the middle of a capitalistic society 25 years from now. The latest National Geographic shows a new track of Chinese homes. Two story, garages, swimming pools, half acre lots, porches etc. It rivals anything in America. Once the Chinese worker has tasted capitalism, and the better things in life, there will be no such thing as a communist government.

Russian communism fell due to, among other reasons, the fact that there was no incentive for the average worker. No matter how hard he worked, his lot in life didn't change. He was lucky to get heat for his government furnished apartment. He was lucky if the market had bread that day. There was no incentive for him to produce. Take away that incentive, and any society fails.

That's a popularly cited, but only partial reason why Russian communism fell. Given the turmoil the country went through (twice having it's entire infrastructure destroyed, multiple draughts, excessive military spending, etc.) most countries would have undergone an a similar collapse. It's amazing Russia lasted as long as it did.

As for China, the strength of a control based government, i.e. it's ability to spend money, where ever it sees fit and as much as it sees fit, matched with it's semi-free market affords it's citizens a progressively better lifestyle (it's slowly moving away from 3rd world status) while being able to set up a modern infrastructure at an AMAZING rate (I think a quote I heard was a 500MW powerstation built a week.)

That 'taste of Capitolism' will just make their citizens more content. Economically, the balance that China is striking is scary it's so effective, especially long term. The government has TONS of money to invest in long term projects (stuff that won't pay off for 20-30 years) and the ability/freedom to do so, where a US company couldn't afford to wait that long on an investment.

The US will be the UK of today in 30 years. A once relivant afterthough in the world of economic heavyweights.

Wow. This thread is awesome.

Let me get this straight; you've made two arguments (among many) that say the following:

1) Corporations (aka the big structure) should not have all these huge profits and this amazing economic power at the expense of all the everyday workers (the common man).

2) China (aka the big structure) is doing amazing things with its country and is able to immensely profit, but is doing so at the expense of the freedom of its citizens (the common man).

Reconcile the two and we'll continue from there.

90Q45blue wrote:Wow. This thread is awesome.

Let me get this straight; you've made two arguments (among many) that say the following:

1) Corporations (aka the big structure) should not have all these huge profits and this amazing economic power at the expense of all the everyday workers (the common man).

Both Barack and Hillary are running TV Ads in Indiana talking about the Wind Fall Profits that the Oil Company are making. On the backs of the American Middle Class. What they aren't telling us is that the Federal Government is making Wind Fall Profits on the back of all Americans. The only difference between Corporate America and the Federal Government is that Copr America kicks back the profits in the form of dividens and the Federal Government squanders their profit. If making a profit is evil.. why don't both Barack and Hillary point the finger at the Federal Government?

Also, if Corporations are making these big profits.. why then are they laying people off, scaling down their operations and writting down huge portions of their assts? I come into work each day expecting a pink slip, a compensation package and a copy paper box on my desk... Things arent so great right now in Corporate America.

JimmyMethod wrote:1) Conservatives want 'fair' treatment for everyone, e.g. everyone is taxed the same, gets the same benefits, etc.2) Liberals want 'just' treatment for everyone, e.g. Those who need more help because they are disadvantaged, get more than those who don't need help.3) You're miss attributing the 'live and let live' concept. It's about self expression, identity, etc. (generally more social norming stuff). 4) What I said above is more accurate.

1) Nope. He who works the hardest, reaps the benefits. Conservatives know "life's not fair", and are willing to employ self-relaince and rugged individualism to make sure they're above water, not beneath it.

2) Pretty accurate, but their assessment of who is "in need" is also heavily based on emotion rather than logic (or reality).

3) I'm not misattributing anything. Interesting how the Libbies are gung-ho for evolutionary Darwinism, yet horrified at social and economic Darwinism. Can't have it both ways, lefty. And don't call me "Miss".

4) Only on a college campus. Once you hit the shark tank, all that pie-in-the-sky shat flies out the window.

90Q45blue wrote:Reconcile the two and we'll continue from there.

Oh the humanity.

THAT was a headshot.

Being a "libby" isn't a social/economic disease. It is a necessary element of good government. Without libbies, we'd have a class system much like India. Without "libbies" there would be no Hoover dam, instead we'd have a fleet of supersonic transports/bombers ( B-70 Valkyrie - even the B1) sitting in some desert boneyard rotting away.

Without libbies we'd not have the likes of our beloved CARB leading our nation to a brighter, cleaner future.

Libbies should not be confused with communist. Liberal beliefs are not the same as Jimmy's communist manifesto here.

Libbies believe that there are things that the free market economy won't provide, like unpopular but necessary regulatory legislation. Just let the free market economy set the national speed limit and we'll have truckers driving 125mph between fillups making sure they got their "on time bonuses".

The secret is in balance grasshoper. Without balance we have nothing.

According to Dr Michael Savage... Liberalism is a Metal Disorder.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberali...r=8-1