Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You made me pull out my economics book for this one because I too thought this way. This is how I understand it. I will use real life examples. By the way, Peter now lives in your city, Victoria.
Edward and Peter (both poor and not real names) are given $20,000 each.
Edward spends his money on beer and cigars, women, and expensive clothes. I will stop there because just those few things can wipe out $20,000 today.
Edward was given money but made no money from it and he is broke again. Yes, some business are $20,000 richer but the income stops when he is broke. He will soon need money again. Should those business return the $20,000? The point is that $20,000 was taken from other people (mom and dad) who could have used that money for something more productive for them.
Peter spends his money to go to a local university and graduates with top honors. He now makes over $100,000 per year.
Peter was given money and now has made more money out of it. His services has lowered the prices on goods so that his company can stay competitive. If a consumer buys his company's goods, they will have money left over to buy something else. This creates more jobs and more goods are available to consumers.
There was a moral lesson to this, believe it or not, in the economics book. What is not good for one man, is not good for the rest of us. What is good for one man, is good for the rest of us. This can be true for businesses as well. The business that spends lavishly but does not invest in the company or employees will more than likely suffer than the business that does reinvests its profits in the company or employees.
It seems that it doesn't make a difference who buys the goods (rich man vs. poor man) but that is where supply and demand come in. If everybody can afford it, then the demand increases but the supply is limited. There will probably be a shortage.
That's all good, if the jobs are there for Peter.
Your "morals" story is valid insofar as morals go in any give time slice. Let's see...fast forward 10 years and Edward has repented and has gotten a job at McDonald's, the only place he can get a job (and he was lucky to get it). He saves (with all his extra income from his great salary with benefits) and scrimps and puts himself through night school and gets a CAD degree and becomes a draftsperson and leads a sober honest life. Peter meanwhile has had a nasty divorce and his ex has absconded with everything but the shirt on his back....he loses his job after being found guilty of sexual harrassment...he drowns his sorrows in drink and drugs and goes straight down the tubes, losing everything...
Just an illustration by way of saying you cannot account for the full, real, true story of people's lives, saying who's moral and who's not. And that 20 grand they both got in the beginning? What is the final upshot in a case like this? We cannot make judgments about other people in the end.
Why would it be a natural thing for Peter's services to lower the price on goods??? The object in capitalism is to higher the prices on goods--to create more demand than supply for...profits. Maybe there's something missing here.
On another note, there's no reason to believe that morals have anything to do with hardcore economics, at least in our system. Money is money, no matter how you grow and spend it. That's all the capitalistic machine cares about. A great economy can be going on all while there is plenty of "amoral" misery.
Last edited by RiverBird; 09-20-2010 at 09:02 PM..
[quote=Nocontengencies;15958807 I think there will always be people that want everybody else to buy their stuff for them, they will never have anything and will never get it. And somehow it is never their fault.[/QUOTE]
Just so we better understand....how are you drawing the simplistic conclusion that the Have Nots are "people who want everybody else to buy their stuff for them"?
There were jobs for Peter. He chose his field one way. He referred to a list with the top paying degrees. He chose the top one. (Oh, and this is not relevant, but Peter was into drugs in high school and pretty much got sorry grades. He repented because he suddenly had a family, a little girl who I helped raised.) Peter gained where Edward lost. Anyway, anytime salaries are very high for a particular job, that is where people should train. It has to do with supply and demand.
Your "morals" story is valid insofar as morals go in any give time slice. Let's see...fast forward 10 years and Edward has repented and has gotten a job at McDonald's, the only place he can get a job (and he was lucky to get it). He saves (with all his extra income from his great salary with benefits) and scrimps and puts himself through night school and gets a CAD degree and becomes a draftsperson and leads a sober honest life. Peter meanwhile has had a nasty divorce and his ex has absconded with everything but the shirt on his back....he loses his job after being found guilty of sexual harrassment...he drowns his sorrows in drink and drugs and goes straight down the tubes, losing everything...
The book's response, Edward should not get a degree in CAD but perhaps in the same field as Peter. When Peter's personal life goes down the toilet and brings him with it, Edward can step in and offer to take over. He might have to take a lower salary than Peter because his skills are not as good but he might be making more money than a CAD employee.
Understand something about this particular economics book. It does not go after poor people. It goes after any person or group who tries to get laws passed in order to save their industry, really their salary. A recent example would be the financial industry.
Just an illustration by way of saying you cannot account for the full, real, true story of people's lives, saying who's moral and who's not. And that 20 grand they both got in the beginning? What is the final upshot in a case like this? We cannot make judgments about other people in the end.
It is not about making judgments on other people. Notice how I did not say anything about the men prior to the $20,000 except that they were poor? It is what they did with the $20,000 that I judged. It is about making good ones for yourself. Can you take the full account of saving the financial industry?
Why would it be a natural thing for Peter's services to lower the price on goods??? The object in capitalism is to higher the prices on goods--to create more demand than supply for...profits. Maybe there's something missing here.
Absolutely right. When two companies make comparable coats they have to sell at the same price. According to the book, people like to get their needs met with as little effort as possible. So one of the companies purchases a machine that will replace human labor to decrease production costs and increase production of the coats. However, the price of the coats stays the same. There is no reason for the more efficient company to reduce prices, that is, until the other company decides to drop their price.
This is what some women I know are taking advantage of. They are making jewelry that is comparable to jewelry at the mall but selling it for 30% less. However, they have to do the work themselves. They cannot enter this market unless they lower their price for one reason, somebody else has figured out how to profit from the fruits of others labors (China).
To put this another way, say your child and others in the area walk to school. It takes them an hour each way. Then one day you notice one of the other children leaving 30 minutes later and coming home 30 minutes earlier but he is riding a bike. Will you buy your child a bike? Probably yes. This saves him time or maybe he can stay later at the library and study more. Profits is not always about money.
On another note, there's no reason to believe that morals have anything to do with hardcore economics, at least in our system. Money is money, no matter how you grow and spend it. That's all the capitalistic machine cares about. A great economy can be going on all while there is plenty of "amoral" misery.
It does play a part. If you spend lavishly or waste your time lavishly, doesn't matter who you are: somebody's child, a mother, father or business owner and you don't invest in yourself, your skills, your assets, your reputation, somebody else will benefit from this. A good business man might not see this as morals but just good business sense. It is simply alternative vocabulary for the same idea.
The whole point of progress is for us to get our needs met with less effort. Progress has done just that. I don't know where you are in the world but, I was able to send a message to you, make breakfast for my daughter, take her out to the park in my car and still have time to improve my skills in my field.
Thanks for responding with an answer that I can respond to. When I write posts on CD, sometimes I wonder if if they are not vitriolic enough to get responses (e.g. ALL RICH PEOPLE ARE GREEDY or ALL POOR PEOPLE ARE LAZY AND STUPID).
I would still like somebody to answer why those businesses Edward supported should give back the $20,000. They did him no good in the long run.
There were jobs for Peter.... Anyway, anytime salaries are very high for a particular job, that is where people should train. It has to do with supply and demand.
There were jobs for Peter...then. What about now? Did you read my earlier link to a blog about people with law degrees not finding any work?
People cannot train in areas in which they have no aptitude (not skill, but aptitude). You cannot train someone who has no aptitude in math to be an engineer, or someone with no aptitude with memorization, logic, or verbal debate to be a lawyer. Not everyone is a natural genius, no matter how hard they apply themselves in high school. And, there are many geniuses that make nothing of themselves. Aptitude (first) + Motivation = Success.
The book's response, Edward should not get a degree in CAD but perhaps in the same field as Peter.
See above. What if any "Edward" had completely different aptitudes than any Peter and they either were not recognized or he had a hard time finding a field that they fit in? Or if he had a learning disorder that prevented him from exercising proper motivation? I'm not excusing your particular Edward's lifestyle when he got the 20 grand. But if you're making a sweeping generalization about ALL people, you have to realize that not all people who fail after getting a gift of 20 grand did so because of a degenerate lifestyle. There are many reasons for "failure"--some are a person's own fault, others are not.
When Peter's personal life goes down the toilet and brings him with it, Edward can step in and offer to take over. He might have to take a lower salary than Peter because his skills are not as good but he might be making more money than a CAD employee.
How delightfully optimistic! Why would Edward "step in and take over"?? Why would he be obligated to do such a thing? By the way, CAD skills are pretty d*** good and it's a fine profession even it it's not as "high and well paying" as Eddie's job. And I would imagine that layoffs happen even in Eddie's field?? (This question directly relates to "Who are the Have Nots"---the laid-off!!!)
Understand something about this particular economics book. It does not go after poor people. It goes after any person or group who tries to get laws passed in order to save their industry, really their salary. A recent example would be the financial industry.
What exactly are you saying here in regard to your Edward and Peter??
It is not about making judgments on other people. Notice how I did not say anything about the men prior to the $20,000 except that they were poor? It is what they did with the $20,000 that I judged. It is about making good ones for yourself. Can you take the full account of saving the financial industry?
[color="DarkRed"]You did make significant judgments by implying that Peter was "the better man" for what he did, and Eddie a scumball for what he did. We do not know the full picture behind their behavior and actions. Yours was a hypothetical analysis between two men. My fast-forward was a hypothetical about what could happen in the future--the tables get reversed. Honestly, you are applying subjective (your own) morals to an objective question about economics. The OP asked "Who Are the Have Nots". He did not ask why they are Have Nots. To speculate why a person is a Have Not is to make possibly unfounded judgements and assumptions, and to stereotype people. My efforts in all these responses about Haves and Have Nots is to bust apart the fondness for stereotyping people. Just as all Haves are not greedy people, all Have Nots are not necessarily lazy or stupid people.
Absolutely right. When two companies make comparable coats they have to sell at the same price.
No, not according to the capitalistic/entrepreneur theories of Marketing. You make two identical coats and put a designer label on one of them and market the H*** out of it in women's mags and on TV, and you get two very different products at two vastly different prices, even though they are the same coat made out of the same matierals.
According to the book, people like to get their needs met with as little effort as possible. So one of the companies purchases a machine that will replace human labor to decrease production costs and increase production of the coats. However, the price of the coats stays the same.
Where are you, in some Communist country? In capitalist countries, the object of the game is to pay workers less and less (and outsource labor overseas to do this), use less and less decent materials, build things not to last, increase production and....up the costs wherever there is demand. And, if Peter is the highly paid CEO of that coat company, he will most likely be destroying American jobs by sending his company labor overseas. Morals????
There is no reason for the more efficient company to reduce prices, that is, until the other company decides to drop their price.
Marketing, marketing....
This is what some women I know are taking advantage of. They are making jewelry that is comparable to jewelry at the mall but selling it for 30% less. However, they have to do the work themselves. They cannot enter this market unless they lower their price for one reason, somebody else has figured out how to profit from the fruits of others labors (China).
Yes, and in the production in China there is another morals problem, unsafe and cheap labor.
To put this another way, say your child and others in the area walk to school. It takes them an hour each way. Then one day you notice one of the other children leaving 30 minutes later and coming home 30 minutes earlier but he is riding a bike. Will you buy your child a bike? Probably yes. This saves him time or maybe he can stay later at the library and study more. Profits is not always about money.
Whatever are you saying here? There is also something called "opportunity cost" in economics. maybe the kid who doesn't get the bike gets the opportunity to talk with his teacher more after class (they are both walking the same route), or the kid who walks is in better shape and becomes an athlete. Who knows? All I'm saying is that this scenario does not add anything to whatver your argument is.
[Morals] does play a part. If you spend lavishly or waste your time lavishly, doesn't matter who you are: somebody's child, a mother, father or business owner and you don't invest in yourself, your skills, your assets, your reputation, somebody else will benefit from this. A good business man might not see this as morals but just good business sense. It is simply alternative vocabulary for the same idea.
See my comments on morals, above. Good business often means the necessity to employ poor morals (for everyone's "gain" or profit above a certain point, someone else is being taken advantage of little or much).
The whole point of progress is for us to get our needs met with less effort. Progress has done just that. I don't know where you are in the world but, I was able to send a message to you, make breakfast for my daughter, take her out to the park in my car and still have time to improve my skills in my field.
Called "multitasking." This is what people who work at dunkin donuts or mcdonald's do every day...wait on people while taking orders while answering the phone while packaging a burger while running the cash register while smiling....
but unless they get a clue about how to help themselves, throwing more money at the problem won't change things. .
And you think that trying to teach people to have and use common sense will change things? If you have an idea how to teach people to do that, please give us a general outline of the revolutionary and magical curriculum you have in mind. What is the role of for-profit corporate advertising in this wonderful plan of yours to give people a clue about how to help themselves?
Come on, tell us what WILL change things. Something that doesn't involve fairies, wands and stardust. Something for which wishful thinking does not constitute a mission accomplished.
What IS the role of government in "promoting the general welfare" of the citizenry, as commanded by the Preamble? Here's an example. Some people here have suggested that it is the responsibility of everyone to be prepared, through thrift, for a rainy day. OK. A person making $10 an hour will earn a million dollars in a lifetime. So, each family needs to sock away atleast a million dollars, just in case. 100-million households, times a million dollars, works out to $100,000,000,000,000. That's a hundred trillion, taken out of circulation, prudently stashed away by the personally responsible, waiting for rainy days---job loss, illness, etc. But the government has a better idea. Since only a small number of families will ever see that rainy day, there is a central repository, holding a small fraction of that amount, to help each one as his personal cloudburst opens. That releases most of that hundred trillion to be used for other things, like making all our lives better. Some people call it "insurance". What's the role of government, if not to ensure the commonweal?
Are there going to be some outliers, who will abuse the system, and take advantage of it? Sure. There are always abusers of any system. Look how Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Sam Walton and Alex Rodriguez abused the system, and used it to take so much for themselves, just because they could. But I bet any abuser of welfare or unemployment will be stopped before they hit the $50-billion mark.
There were jobs for Peter...then. What about now? Did you read my earlier link to a blog about people with law degrees not finding any work?
People cannot train in areas in which they have no aptitude (not skill, but aptitude). You cannot train someone who has no aptitude in math to be an engineer, or someone with no aptitude with memorization, logic, or verbal debate to be a lawyer. Not everyone is a natural genius, no matter how hard they apply themselves in high school. And, there are many geniuses that make nothing of themselves. Aptitude (first) + Motivation = Success.
ETA: I disagree here. I think you can train people for particular skills. They just might not be as good as other people. I do not think that many lawyers should charge the fees they are charging. For example, when my husband applied for a green card, his employer recommended a lawyer to do the paperwork for us. However, I had already done my research, downloaded all the necessary paperwork and filled it out. My reading comprehension and English knowledge allowed me to do this.
My husband insisted that I use this immigration attorney at the cost of $2500 just to be sure everything is done "right." Well, they asked me for a bunch of information (the same information the forms asked). They told us to sign the package (the same package I downloaded and filled out myself) and then meet the attorney at INS (now homeland security).
When we got there, he introduced himself and that was about it. We went into the immigration agent's office and were soon separated. We were asked very personal questions about our home and we were never warned by our attorney. One of our answers did not match, the sheets, but the agent said everybody got that wrong. He placed a condition on my husband's status because they still did not trust that we married for the right reasons.
As were were leaving, the attorney thanked us for using his services and said to call him when the conditional status was almost up. He would like to do that for us as well.
I replied, "No thank you. Your services were overpriced and I could have done it myself. Maybe I should just go into your business and charge people $1000."
We lost and he gained but my husband learned a very important lesson that day - trust the wife.
See above. What if any "Edward" had completely different aptitudes than any Peter and they either were not recognized or he had a hard time finding a field that they fit in? Or if he had a learning disorder that prevented him from exercising proper motivation? I'm not excusing your particular Edward's lifestyle when he got the 20 grand. But if you're making a sweeping generalization about ALL people, you have to realize that not all people who fail after getting a gift of 20 grand did so because of a degenerate lifestyle. There are many reasons for "failure"--some are a person's own fault, others are not.
That is right so why is college trying to be sold to everyone?
Also, what you consider a degenerate lifestyle, somebody else might not consider it. That is why nobody should tell me how to invest $20,000. Do you agree that the banks should have lent hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who could not afford it?
How delightfully optimistic! Why would Edward "step in and take over"?? Why would he be obligated to do such a thing? By the way, CAD skills are pretty d*** good and it's a fine profession even it it's not as "high and well paying" as Eddie's job. And I would imagine that layoffs happen even in Eddie's field?? (This question directly relates to "Who are the Have Nots"---the laid-off!!!)
From my experience optimism is relative. Some people are less optimistic than I am and some are more.
What exactly are you saying here in regard to your Edward and Peter??
That "haves" and "have-nots" is a waste of time. It is about one person gaining and the other losing. I no longer tell people that I made better decisions than they did. I simply tell them that I made a decision. If it was a good one, then good for me. If it was a bad one, I accept my losses. Usually this means good for somebody else.
You did make significant judgments by implying that Peter was "the better man" for what he did, and Eddie a scumball for what he did. We do not know the full picture behind their behavior and actions. Yours was a hypothetical analysis between two men. My fast-forward was a hypothetical about what could happen in the future--the tables get reversed. Honestly, you are applying subjective (your own) morals to an objective question about economics. The OP asked "Who Are the Have Nots". He did not ask why they are Have Nots. To speculate why a person is a Have Not is to make possibly unfounded judgements and assumptions, and to stereotype people. My efforts in all these responses about Haves and Have Nots is to bust apart the fondness for stereotyping people. Just as all Haves are not greedy people, all Have Nots are not necessarily lazy or stupid people.
I was responding to another posters comments about why does it matter where the thousand dollars goes to.
I implied that Peter was a better investment in regards to the $20,000. I never said he never cheated on his wife. Investments come with rewards but don't forget that they come with risks.
No, not according to the capitalistic/entrepreneur theories of Marketing. You make two identical coats and put a designer label on one of them and market the H*** out of it in women's mags and on TV, and you get two very different products at two vastly different prices, even though they are the same coat made out of the same matierals.
The only reason marketing exists is because there is a demand. The only reason that demand exists is because it convinces many consumers. That is how anybody determines what is to be produced or what types of jobs will be created, by the demand. For example, in your own household, the things you need changes through out the day. In the morning, there is demand for food so you work at getting breakfast ready. Once you have met that demand you do not continue getting breakfast ready. You get the kids ready for school.
Since people continue to be influenced by marketing, there will be a demand for that skill and so that is where the money is invested.
Where are you, in some Communist country? In capitalist countries, the object of the game is to pay workers less and less (and outsource labor overseas to do this), use less and less decent materials, build things not to last, increase production and....up the costs wherever there is demand. And, if Peter is the highly paid CEO of that coat company, he will most likely be destroying American jobs by sending his company labor overseas. Morals????
That is the object of a person without moral. He takes advantage not just of workers but of consumers (food poisoning, lead in children's toys, melamine scandal in China). Why support him? From my experience, it is never good to buy the cheapest or the most expensive. Also, it helps to have a good memory of who tried to rip you off.
Marketing, marketing....
Not my fault if it works well on you. I don't watch much TV (PBS for my daughter) and I don't read the insides of magazines unless the cover story is something important to me. When I was at the doctor's office I saw a nice advertisement for a new show on NBC. At first, it grabbed my attention and I considered maybe tuning in. But then I decided, if they have to spend money on 4 pages of advertisement that really told me nothing about the story line, that I should just trust them that it was a suspenseful story line, it is probably not worth watching. I would rather spend my time typing a response to you.
Yes, and in the production in China there is another morals problem, unsafe and cheap labor.
So that you can have your cheap product.
Whatever are you saying here? There is also something called "opportunity cost" in economics. maybe the kid who doesn't get the bike gets the opportunity to talk with his teacher more after class (they are both walking the same route), or the kid who walks is in better shape and becomes an athlete. Who knows? All I'm saying is that this scenario does not add anything to whatver your argument is.
Exactly, it is about looking at things at a different perspective. I decided to go on leave to raise my daughter for the first two years. I find value in doing that but then people judge me that I am rich. What they don't realize is that I also have to lose but I have to accept my losses. They might be small, like not being able to go on vacations or they might be big, my employer might replace me. But there is one thing for sure, we are not saving as much as we used to. Therefore, I had to spend some of my free time figuring out how to save money instead of using credit cards or dipping into savings.
This is why I wouldn't judge anybody's decisions in life. What is valuable to me might not be valuable to the next person.
See my comments on morals, above. Good business often means the necessity to employ poor morals (for everyone's "gain" or profit above a certain point, someone else is being taken advantage of little or much).
Then stop buying their products. There is already a movement to buy American made.
Called "multitasking." This is what people who work at dunkin donuts or mcdonald's do every day...wait on people while taking orders while answering the phone while packaging a burger while running the cash register while smiling....
It is called efficiency and those people are learning valuable skills.
It's really getting tiresome to keep seeing post after post by people who have been successful, insisting that every other person could have been just as successful, no matter how low their basic intellect, or how poor or lacking their schooling, or how psychologically destructive their home upbringing, or how circumstances in their lives steered them in less positive directions. All "proved" by anecdotal examples of the kid who was run over by a car, and grew up to be a tycoon from his wheelchair. And he deserved all he got because he was the most brutally ruthless manipulator.
People who grow up disadvantaged can do it, but they have to work harder. But they will still be behind those advantaged people who work harder. When you can find a way to close the gap between the people who are the haves right now and the people who are the have-nots right now, you will be part of the solution. Until then, you are part of the problem, just pontificating about how its their own fault for not applying themselves, and reading the 'personal responsibility' riot act.
It's really getting tiresome to keep seeing post after post by people who have been successful, insisting that every other person could have been just as successful, no matter how low their basic intellect, or how poor or lacking their schooling, or how psychologically destructive their home upbringing, or how circumstances in their lives steered them in less positive directions. All "proved" by anecdotal examples of the kid who was run over by a car, and grew up to be a tycoon from his wheelchair. And he deserved all he got because he was the most brutally ruthless manipulator.
People who grow up disadvantaged can do it, but they have to work harder. But they will still be behind those advantaged people who work harder. When you can find a way to close the gap between the people who are the haves right now and the people who are the have-nots right now, you will be part of the solution. Until then, you are part of the problem, just pontificating about how its their own fault for not applying themselves, and reading the 'personal responsibility' riot act.
You can't help but notice that the successful posters are mostly those on the mid-career or retired end of the spectrum who enjoyed the fat of the land through hard work and frugality, yes...but these were times when there was fat on the land. These posters don't get it b/c to admit that anyone today does not have their advantages is to admit that luck (not just personal luck, but national "luck") had an awful lot to do with their success. What these people need to do is enjoy their good positions, for sure, but to hold out a hand to help someone else up. I have read that many in the "minority" communities do that--the ones who make it "up there" reach down and hold out a hand to the ones below. But the posters on these threads who are putting down the minions below them are more interested in polishing their fingrnails on their lapels. They just don't want to admit they got good breaks, that it was not ONLY their personal smarts that got them where they are. So, what's new about that in mainstream America?
For the country not to descend into all-out serfdom (which may be wanted), we have to preserve a middle class. The middle class is the merchant class (small business owners) and job holders. The middle class is the middle part of the pyramid. If the middle class collapses, so does the pyramid structure....and those at the top get thrown to the mercy of the masses...in really bad times like national revolutions.
It's really getting tiresome to keep seeing post after post by people who have been successful, insisting that every other person could have been just as successful, no matter how low their basic intellect, or how poor or lacking their schooling, or how psychologically destructive their home upbringing, or how circumstances in their lives steered them in less positive directions. All "proved" by anecdotal examples of the kid who was run over by a car, and grew up to be a tycoon from his wheelchair. And he deserved all he got because he was the most brutally ruthless manipulator.
People who grow up disadvantaged can do it, but they have to work harder. But they will still be behind those advantaged people who work harder. When you can find a way to close the gap between the people who are the haves right now and the people who are the have-nots right now, you will be part of the solution. Until then, you are part of the problem, just pontificating about how its their own fault for not applying themselves, and reading the 'personal responsibility' riot act.
I respect you trying to defend poor people or disadvantaged people. However, I am not the problem simply because I say "personal responsibility." Please do not try to cover everybody by saying, yes, you could make it if you were disadvantaged BUT....I have revealed little about my background and see no point in doing so. You would just see it as, oh, another personal responsibility person.
I am not sure what is wrong with personal responsibility. If an older child was hitting my child and I said stop and the other child yelled, "I can't because my mom beats me up." This would be looked upon differently than if I was never around and my child got beaten to a pulp and the defendants says, "My mom beats me up." (I seriously doubt the first situation ever happens.)
What I think is part of the problem is when there are poor people who work hard but are lumped up with the lazy poor who want free handouts. The flip side of the coin is when there are wealthy people who work hard but are lumped up with the greedy profiteers. I think everybody should get access to health care, education food and have a roof over their head. It is what I would like access to if I ever lost my job. That is part of my solution because I believe that evens everybody up.
I think everybody should get access to health care, education food and have a roof over their head.It is what I would like access to if I ever lost my job. That is part of my solution because I believe that evens everybody up.
Finally, we are in agreement. I'm relieved you can even grant that much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is that $20,000 was taken from other people (mom and dad) who could have used that money for something more productive for them.
