ping: Nate .. old baja pics

TBone wrote:

> Sorry Miles, but what I said is far more sensible than what you have. I do
> have friends in this situation and while they do see many of the joys in
> life, they also face the very real fear of losing everything sonce they have
> little to fall back on and the worries of how to get their kids into a good
> college.

Thats the USA, not Mexico. The USA isn't Mexico. You have friends, I
work with these people weekly. Wonder why so few liberals just say
rather than do but thats a different issue!

>> Yes, they need liberals to tell them they are miserable and what they need
>> to be happy. Typical liberal absurdity at its worst.
>
> They need that about as much as you telling them that they are.

I don't tell them a thing. They tell me. It's you trying to tell them
they're really miserable in typical liberal fashion and how your absurd
liberalism can 'save' them from such misery. You're sounding like a
liberal politician.

Sorry
> Miles, but it works both ways and if they are so happy and you are so
> envious of their lifestyles as you claim, what is stopping you form joining
> them.

My folks did and in time I may do the same. They went from a 4000sf
home on 2 acres to a 1200sf home on 1/8 acre. They went from a new
airplane and 2 Cadillacs to a 1998 CTD and a 2002 Explorer. They could
have more if they wanted but they don't want it and don't need liberals
like you telling them that they do.

> LOL, please Miles, just about everything else that you say in here says
> something very different.

Oh ya? Tell me Tom, how many hours a week to you spend directly helping
and working with others outside your own family (not just donations, but
time). Compassionate liberalism involves getting others to pay and give
and never themselves.

> Let me ask you something Miles, do you claim any of that money as tax
> deductions?

Ya, its always all about deductions huh? So I give 30% out of my own
pocket. Tell me Tom, how much money does that generate for me? Sorry
Tom, it doesn't generate me money, it costs me money. But go ahead and
not give to others so you can't be accused of a tax write off. Good
grief, what a sorry reason not to give! In reality Tom, to answer your
question, NO. I can't deduct 30%. Most of it is NOT to charitable
organizations. It's directly to people I work with and help. Dang
'compassionate' liberals.

> It's not what I say Miles, but what you say. You keep saying that anyone
> working in unskilled labor shouldn't even make enough money to live.

Never said that. I said minimum wage shouldn't be set as such nor
should a Walmart door greeter be paid as such etc. Your view is that
people should be paid based on need and not abilities. Theres a social
and economic system with that mentality..know what it is Tom?

> You
> also plan on continuing to pay yourself your full salary until either your
> company goes under or you die. Yea, that's real giving.

You have never been able to explain why investing in my own company and
retiring on its returns is bad. You have told me I should invest in
other companies (stocks etc.). Why other companies and not my own?

> Again Miles, what you are saying here differs greatly from everything else
> that you say.

Bull. I have always said I give considerably as many conservatives do.
Liberals are all talk....talk with other peoples money and not their own.

> And you seem to think that they need you to tell them that they are.

Again, they tell me and I leave it at that. I do not tell them
anything. But you sure seem to!
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:
> since Monica never
> issued a complaint, why did they ask???

HUH? The court trial wasn't about Monica. Do you even know what
Clinton was being investigated for? Hint, it wasn't about Monica. He
was questioned about her to show Clinton had a pattern of such behavior
for the case brought up against him....which wasn't about Monica at all.


>>> What purpose did it serve? You would have done exactly the same thing
>>> and just about everyone on the planet knows that the whole thing was a
>>> setup.

Most people certainly would not do the same thing. Most people aren't
sexual harassers. Ya, I know, Clinton was a nice guy who treated women
who worked for him with respect. Sigh...

> Who said anything about him being innocent but when you look at the
> character of the women who accused him....

You certainly do look the other way at his guilt. He had no respect for
women who worked for him yet you keep defending this scum.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

"Miles" <nope RemoveThis @nopers.com> wrote in message
news:y8Lwj.8796$ZQ2.1298@newsfe08.phx...
> TBone wrote:
>> since Monica never issued a complaint, why did they ask???
>
> HUH? The court trial wasn't about Monica. Do you even know what Clinton
> was being investigated for?

Sure I do, right wing fear. Clinton was doing everything that the right
swore would destroy the economy and the economy was doing just fine.

> Hint, it wasn't about Monica.

No, she was just the set up and trap, how lame.

> He was questioned about her to show Clinton had a pattern of such behavior
> for the case brought up against him....which wasn't about Monica at all.

But that makes no sense. How does what he did with Monica have anything to
do with sexual harassment? Men can cheat on their wives and not be sexual
harassers. It seems more to me that many of these women simply thought that
giveng him a little something would get them somewhere and when it didn't
they got pissed off. Funny how none of them tried to do anything until he
became president and one of them posed for Playboy. Yea, real high self
proclaimed moral values there.

>
>
>>>> What purpose did it serve? You would have done exactly the same thing
>>>> and just about everyone on the planet knows that the whole thing was a
>>>> setup.
>
> Most people certainly would not do the same thing. Most people aren't
> sexual harassers. Ya, I know, Clinton was a nice guy who treated women
> who worked for him with respect. Sigh...

LOL, can we put a stop to the spin for even a second. What I said was that
most men in that situation would deny cheating on their wifes in public.
Clinton is far from the only man to do that, including others in important
political positions. Do you remember Newt?

>
>> Who said anything about him being innocent but when you look at the
>> character of the women who accused him....
>
> You certainly do look the other way at his guilt. He had no respect for
> women who worked for him yet you keep defending this scum.

Simply put Miles, you really don't know exactly what happened in any of
those situations. Sure, it's easy for you to fully blame Clinton for
everything, especially since you hate him the way that you do but that
doesn't make it true. Sure, he was a slime messing with these women and
cheating on his wife, but something tells me that many of these women had
their own ideas and got pissed when it didn't work their way.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:

> Only a conservative would assume such a thing. Perhaps what I hear is
> different than what you do. Could that be possible???

You've never been there or heard from anyone that I have yet you've
'heard' huh? Sorry TBone, I do not assume anything...that would be your
liberal mentality. Geez is your far radical left side coming out in full
force! Trying to tell someone that they're really miserable and how
your liberal socialistic policies can save them from their misery.
Unbelievable you really believe your rhetoric!

> I've done no such thing but unless you have heard from the majority of the
> popullation and you haven't, your claims are as invalid as you claim mine to
> be.

You've never traveled to Mexico and spoken with the locals yet you know
them better huh? Too funny.

> LOL, the only one making the claim that liberals or anyone else are telling
> people how they feel is you.

No TBone, you keep telling me how you know they are really miserable
even though they say they are not. Now you deny trying to tell them
they must be wrong?

> I am simply going by what I am told and the
> number of them coming here goes against everything that you say.

Those coming here are not representative of the Mexican population as a
whole. They are a select segment of the population...not Mexico.

> As for investing, I am all for that but
> please expalain to me how you are investing in your company.

Huh? One can't invest in their own company? Hmm...

> As far as I
> can see, you are not doing anything more than any of your other employees so
> are you saying that they all have this same oppertunity?

I do the same thing as employees huh? So what you are saying is that
the Walmart door greeter is doing the same thing as the store manager.
Good grief!

> I never said that Miles but as I have said many times, if thise business
> owners (many of them conservatives) actually paid their employee's a living
> wage, then most of this "help" would be unnecessary.

Most do just that. Minimum wage at my company is $10/hr to start for a
totally unskilled job such as front receptionist who mostly reads books
and greets the occasional client. Ya, I know, that person should make
$20 or $30 I'm sure.

> LOL, perhaps that's because most of them are conservative organizations to
> begin with.

Yep and thats because liberals do not start nor belong to very many such
organizations. They're all talk with other peoples money instead of
their own money and time.

> If what you say is true and I have no reason not
> to believe you, then you do seem to give but saying that most conservatives
> do as well is nothing more than your belie

Not so at all. I grew up around top politicians and business owners.
Every one of them gave considerable sums of money and more importantly
their time directly helping others. Many business owners started very
worthwhile charitable organizations. Ya, I know, it was all for some
tax write off that somehow magically generated them more money. Could
never have been because they wanted to help others.

> and the fact that we have so
> many in this country without health insurance and considered working poor
> says something completely different.

How is that the republicans and conservatives fault and not just as much
the Democrats and liberals? It's not. Furthermore socialistic welfare
handouts of the left have never done a thing to reduce poverty. But
they have in many cases oppressed.

> Face it Miles, as long as there are
> poor in need, those above them have power and control over them and that is
> something not so easy to give up and sadly, many of those that give are
> doing it to maintain that power and control.

Yes, and liberals do that extremely well through their social hand out
programs. They gain and maintain control through them. You've told me
you agree and are against such welfare programs. Yet, these are exactly
what the Democrats keep promoting and you support them.

> First you say that you are helping the people that you work with and now you
> say that they don't work for you. Which way is it?

You're confused. I 'work' often with kids by spending time with them,
taking them places they would never be able to go otherwise. I 'work'
with their families helping them to have better homes and learn how to
gain skills to be less dependent on society.

> How exactly are you investing Miles and how many of your employees who are
> also working to make your company a success able to invest in it this way?

Feel free to invest any of your own money yourself and you too can
partake in any returns. You seem to feel that owners who use their own
funds to start a company and then continue to invest their own money
shouldn't make a return greater than the investment. Sorry TBone, thats
what investments are whether into my own company or someone elses
(stocks). So I guess now we need some sort of socialized investment
program where even those that don't invest still get a return?
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:

> Are you now saying that you have personaly spoken to every citizen of Mexico
> amd if not, then WTF are you talking about?

Hmm, WTF are you talking about? I've spoken with many locals all over
Mexico. You've spoken with none yet you've 'heard' them and know they
can't be happy even if they say they are. Typical liberal rhetoric of
thinking you can tell people what they need and how they feel.

> NC has a rather high Mexican
> population

LOL, That TBone says it all. Thats those in the USA. A select segment
of the Mexican population. Until you travel there TBone you have no
clue about anything in Mexico despite your lame attempts. It's too much
for you to admit you know zilch about Mexico so instead you argue as you
have been.


> I don't have to. There are more than enough of them here.

You feel you can understand Mexico by the select segment that come to
the USA? LOL, if you ever travel to Mexico you're in for a huge does
of enlightenment. You'll find the people in Mexico are generally vastly
different in many ways. But go ahead with your fantasy then travel
there with your expectations.

> Sorry to burst your bubble Miles, but "they" say no such thing. Perhaps the
> select few that your wealthy parents know probably do but that is not
> representitive of the entire population.

lol, they're over in Baja. I haven't even mentioned anyone over there
but go on with your rhetoric! You base your entire knowledge of Mexico
on a select few that have come to the USA. Too funny.

>> Those coming here are not representative of the Mexican population as a
>> whole. They are a select segment of the population...not Mexico.
>
> HTF do you know this Miles???

Because TBone, I know many of them here in the USA just like you. I also
have traveled around Mexico and see the difference. You have not and
yet you know more about Mexico? Don't think so Tom but feel free to
argue some more about a country you've never been to. It's darn right
laughable!

> As usual, you don't answer the question. How exactly are you investing in
> the company?

By continually improving and updating technology in order to stay
competitive. Now Tom, explain your question itself. You seem to have
trouble with investing in a company.

>> I do the same thing as employees huh? So what you are saying is that the
>> Walmart door greeter is doing the same thing as the store manager. Good
>> grief!
>
> In many cases, that would be correct. Please explain what you do that is
> really all that different than anyone else short of your receptionist.

WTF are you talking about? All jobs are really all the same and
therefore everyone should be paid about the same?? WTF are you trying
to say here? You really feel the receptionist can manage the company?
Too funny.

$10/hr comes out
> to a little more than 20G a year. Could you live in your area on that and
> I'm not talking about living the way that you do. Could you reasonably live
> on that at all? If so, then you are doing the right thing but even here in
> NC, it would be difficult to do.

Yes I realize your communistic tendencies with regards to setting
salaries on ones needs rather than on ones abilities. Sorry, that
system has not worked well anywhere its been tried.

> If they can afford to do this, then why didn't they give more money to their
> lower paid employees and eliminate the problem before it starts? Sounds to
> me like these business owners just like that feeling of power.

Oh of course. Gotta be all about power. Every business owner I deal
with pays their employees far above market wages as well as union wages
in the area. Thats how good businesses keep their skilled employees
rather than loose them to the competition. But I don't expect you to
comprehend that philosophy because it is counter to your bias and hatred.

>> It's not. Furthermore socialistic welfare handouts of the left have never
>> done a thing to reduce poverty. But they have in many cases oppressed.
>
> Once again, you really don't know WTF you are talking about.

Oh by all means do tell! Please explain the great social programs that
have reduced poverty. Explain what sustained years poverty dropped
substantially in this country as a direct result of social hand outs.
Sorry TBone, there has been and always will be poverty.

> Perhaps if people like yourself would stop justifying the lowest pay
> possible and started paying people that work hard and are dependable a
> working wage, this would be much less necessary. Any way that you want to
> spin it Miles, there are simply not enough skilled jobs available for
> everyone that needs them.

What are you saying? So we need to create them like Russia does? Pay
intro level unskilled workers based on needs rather than abilities?
Thats been done in Russia. Guess what? They were still just as poor as
ever but you've never understand why it doesn't work.

> I would say that by
> now, your company has returned your initial investment many times over so
> how much is enough Miles?

I see. So Tom, do you invest in anything for your retirement? If you
even have a modest return of only 8% your money will double every 10
years. So your initial investment will be returned many times over in
time. Thats just wrong to you huh? What warped logic.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

"Miles" <nope.DeleteThis@nopers.com> wrote in message
news:ufryj.84$GW5.21@newsfe12.phx...
> TBone wrote:
>
>> Are you now saying that you have personaly spoken to every citizen of
>> Mexico amd if not, then WTF are you talking about?
>
> Hmm, WTF are you talking about? I've spoken with many locals all over
> Mexico. You've spoken with none yet you've 'heard' them and know they
> can't be happy even if they say they are. Typical liberal rhetoric of
> thinking you can tell people what they need and how they feel.

I find that hard to believe Miles. The way that you described your
childhood shows that your parents liked to be involved with the upper
classes so I really doubt that they delt much with the poor in Mexico.
Sure, compared to the way you probably lived, many of them seemed poor
compared to your standard of living, but as you say, they have a different
life style and probably were somewhat well off compared to the ones I'm
talking about.

>
>> NC has a rather high Mexican population
>
> LOL, That TBone says it all. Thats those in the USA. A select segment
> of the Mexican population. Until you travel there TBone you have no clue
> about anything in Mexico despite your lame attempts. It's too much for
> you to admit you know zilch about Mexico so instead you argue as you have
> been.

LOL, sorry Miles, but you really don't have a clue. I'm sure that in the
areas that you hung out in Mexico many of the people there are happy but
that does not make it the whole country. You then make the claim that only
a select group of people from there are unhappy and say that they are the un
and under educated but give no reason as to why. The reason Miles, is that
they didn't have the privilege to go to school as for many, there were no
schools in the area and even if there were, they needed their children to
work as soon as they could to put food on the table because they simply
couldn't make enough money to do it on their own and the social program in
Mexico that YOU posted giving money to families with children to keep them
in school confirms that very thing.

>
>
>> I don't have to. There are more than enough of them here.
>
> You feel you can understand Mexico by the select segment that come to the
> USA? LOL, if you ever travel to Mexico you're in for a huge does of
> enlightenment. You'll find the people in Mexico are generally vastly
> different in many ways. But go ahead with your fantasy then travel there
> with your expectations.

LOL, nobody ever said that everyone in Mexico wanted to leave Miles. But
with over 40% at or below the poverty line, if even only 20% of those people
want to leave, that is a significantly large number and not all of these
people are either ignorant or lazy.

>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble Miles, but "they" say no such thing. Perhaps
>> the select few that your wealthy parents know probably do but that is not
>> representitive of the entire population.
>
> lol, they're over in Baja. I haven't even mentioned anyone over there but
> go on with your rhetoric! You base your entire knowledge of Mexico on a
> select few that have come to the USA. Too funny.

LOL, if it were only a few, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>
>>> Those coming here are not representative of the Mexican population as a
>>> whole. They are a select segment of the population...not Mexico.
>>
>> HTF do you know this Miles???
>
> Because TBone, I know many of them here in the USA just like you. I also
> have traveled around Mexico and see the difference. You have not and yet
> you know more about Mexico? Don't think so Tom but feel free to argue
> some more about a country you've never been to. It's darn right
> laughable!

Sorry Miles, but the only one laughable right now is you. Nobody said that
they all want to come here but there are enough to make the borders a
problem.

>
>> As usual, you don't answer the question. How exactly are you investing
>> in the company?
>
> By continually improving and updating technology in order to stay
> competitive. Now Tom, explain your question itself. You seem to have
> trouble with investing in a company.

Sorry Miles, but that's how any company stays in business and every manager
does or at least tries to do that and no matter how much tech you have,
without skilled hard working people, you will still go under so it seems
that your employees are investing the same amount as you do. Why is it then
that they, unlike you, get nothing more than a paycheck? If you invest then
you should get a return, right Miles?

>
>>> I do the same thing as employees huh? So what you are saying is that
>>> the Walmart door greeter is doing the same thing as the store manager.
>>> Good grief!
>>
>> In many cases, that would be correct. Please explain what you do that is
>> really all that different than anyone else short of your receptionist.
>
> WTF are you talking about? All jobs are really all the same and therefore
> everyone should be paid about the same?? WTF are you trying to say here?
> You really feel the receptionist can manage the company? Too funny.

Yawn, your spin is really getting old. I didn't say that the receptionist
could or should manage the company. What I said was that just like you, he
or she is doing her job to the best of their ability and since you are doing
nothing more than your job just like everyone else, why is it that you are
the only one investing or should I say, the only one that will get anything
long term from that investment. Sorry Miles, but that is just greed, plain
and simple.

>
> $10/hr comes out
>> to a little more than 20G a year. Could you live in your area on that
>> and I'm not talking about living the way that you do. Could you
>> reasonably live on that at all? If so, then you are doing the right
>> thing but even here in NC, it would be difficult to do.
>
> Yes I realize your communistic tendencies with regards to setting salaries
> on ones needs rather than on ones abilities. Sorry, that system has not
> worked well anywhere its been tried.

This one really isn't working either but that is not the point. The point
or the question rather, is why do these buisness owners like you refuse to
pay a living wage and yet, give to charities that help these same people
that they underpay???? Sounds like a power trip to me.

>
>> If they can afford to do this, then why didn't they give more money to
>> their lower paid employees and eliminate the problem before it starts?
>> Sounds to me like these business owners just like that feeling of power.
>
> Oh of course. Gotta be all about power. Every business owner I deal with
> pays their employees far above market wages as well as union wages in the
> area. Thats how good businesses keep their skilled employees rather than
> loose them to the competition. But I don't expect you to comprehend that
> philosophy because it is counter to your bias and hatred.

LOL, sorry Miles, but I simply don't believe you. $10 an hour is not a
living wage where you are and you know that.

>
>>> It's not. Furthermore socialistic welfare handouts of the left have
>>> never done a thing to reduce poverty. But they have in many cases
>>> oppressed.
>>
>> Once again, you really don't know WTF you are talking about.
>
> Oh by all means do tell! Please explain the great social programs that
> have reduced poverty. Explain what sustained years poverty dropped
> substantially in this country as a direct result of social hand outs.
> Sorry TBone, there has been and always will be poverty.

If it wasn't for many of these programs Miles, there would have been a
revolution and I fear that we really are not all that far from it now. You
really need to crack open a history book every now and then. And you are
right Miles, as long as people with your ideas exist, there will always be a
much higher level of poverty then there need be.

>
>> Perhaps if people like yourself would stop justifying the lowest pay
>> possible and started paying people that work hard and are dependable a
>> working wage, this would be much less necessary. Any way that you want
>> to spin it Miles, there are simply not enough skilled jobs available for
>> everyone that needs them.
>
> What are you saying? So we need to create them like Russia does? Pay
> intro level unskilled workers based on needs rather than abilities? Thats
> been done in Russia. Guess what? They were still just as poor as ever
> but you've never understand why it doesn't work.

It didn't work for the same reason our system doesn't work either Miles,
greed and corruption. I never said that everyone should make the same money
regardless of their skill level or job type but everyone who works full time
should be paid a living wage. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be
the need for so many money wasting social programs and that money could be
used for both more valid assistance type programs and returned to the tax
payers in lower taxes. It would also mean more people with money to spend
which equates to more customers and more growth, IOW, a healthy economy.
Why is it so hard for people like you to understand that?

>
>> I would say that by now, your company has returned your initial
>> investment many times over so how much is enough Miles?
>
> I see. So Tom, do you invest in anything for your retirement?

Yes I do but many simply cannot afford to due to people like you.

> If you even have a modest return of only 8% your money will double every
> 10 years.

LOL, 8% is far from modest in todays economy but why would that matter to
you.

> So your initial investment will be returned many times over in time.
> Thats just wrong to you huh? What warped logic.

No Miles, it's not but that's not what you are doing and you know it.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:
>
> I find that hard to believe Miles. The way that you described your
> childhood shows that your parents liked to be involved with the upper
> classes so I really doubt that they delt much with the poor in Mexico.

Oh geez. There goes your warped biased arrogant views again. I lived in
Mexico most of the summers and often through the rest of the year as a
kid. In an old old airstream trailer that wasn't very big. Yes, we
dealt with the poor in Mexico quite a bit in those years. Your hatred
arrogance blinds you to reality.

> LOL, sorry Miles, but you really don't have a clue. I'm sure that in the
> areas that you hung out in Mexico many of the people there are happy but
> that does not make it the whole country.

Never said it did. But you paint a picture of a country in dire
straights of poverty and filth and it's nothing of the sort. You are
vastly mistaken if you feel the majority of Mexicans are dirt poor,
starving and miserable.

> The reason Miles, is that
> they didn't have the privilege to go to school as for many, there were no
> schools in the area

Those are the remote villages with very small populations. Thats not
the majority of Mexico you claim are miserable. Even in those villages
not everyone is miserable. Many despise the cities where jobs and to
you better living standards exist. Some want the remote simple old
fashioned village life.

> LOL, nobody ever said that everyone in Mexico wanted to leave Miles. But
> with over 40% at or below the poverty line

So 40% must be miserable huh? The USA has about 15% living below the
poverty level. However, most at around the poverty level have a home,
car, tv, a/c and more.

> Sorry Miles, but that's how any company stays in business and every manager
> does or at least tries to do that and no matter how much tech you have,
> without skilled hard working people, you will still go under so it seems
> that your employees are investing the same amount as you do.

WTF are you talking about? There you go again thinking that someone who
starts and runs a company should make no more return on their investment
than the door greeter at Walmart. After all, that greeter 'invested'
the same amount according to you. Ya, lets all live in a world where
everything is equal, no rich, no poor, everyone taken care of.

> Why is it then
> that they, unlike you, get nothing more than a paycheck? If you invest then
> you should get a return, right Miles?

Returns on investment comes with taking risk. Generally the higher
you're willing to risk then the higher the return on your investment.
An employee isn't taking the same risk as someone who puts their own
paycheck back into the company. If they decide to go elsewhere what do
they loose? If an investor walks away they loose everything they
invested. They take a higher risk.

> Yawn, your spin is really getting old. I didn't say that the receptionist
> could or should manage the company. What I said was that just like you, he
> or she is doing her job to the best of their ability and since you are doing
> nothing more than your job just like everyone else, why is it that you are
> the only one investing or should I say, the only one that will get anything
> long term from that investment.

Because I dump a large share of my own money back into the company
instead of my pocket. I started the company with money earned over many
years of hard work and living near poverty. Yet to you I'm entitled to
the same returns as a receptionist who started yesterday.


> This one really isn't working either but that is not the point. The point
> or the question rather, is why do these buisness owners like you refuse to
> pay a living wage

Like me huh? I pay well above market value and give well above average
raises and benefits. Tell me Tom, how much should the walmart door
greeter type unskilled job earn? $10/hr, 20, 30? What Tom, name it
without being vague or generalizing.

> LOL, sorry Miles, but I simply don't believe you. $10 an hour is not a
> living wage where you are and you know that.

Thats minimum wage at my company for a totally unskilled off the street
job. So whats a living wage to you? $15, $20, $30? So an unskilled
worker like a Walmart greeter should make a livable wage of $20/hr?
You're being absurd here Tom!

> If it wasn't for many of these programs Miles, there would have been a
> revolution and I fear that we really are not all that far from it now.

Oh bull. These programs have never reduced poverty. If anything they
have raised it because they oppress people through dependency on
Government rather than themselves. I asked you to give a solid example
of a program that reduced poverty and you can't even name one.

> but everyone who works full time
> should be paid a living wage.

So pay based on need rather than ability. Great in concept, fails in
reality where its been tried. What do you think would happen if we made
the minimum wage $25/hr? Think there would be less poverty? Guess again.

> Yes I do

So you do invest. Good for you. I hope you are only going to take back
the amount you invested and nothing more. You are telling me that
taking more than I invested into my company is greedy and wrong. So you
do the same with your investments too. Fair enough for ya?

> LOL, 8% is far from modest in todays economy but why would that matter to
> you.

You aren't earning at least 8% on your investments? Geez Tom, you need
a better investment adviser!! In todays economy returns well above 8%
are easy to achieve.

> No Miles, it's not but that's not what you are doing and you know it.

Sure it is Tom. I invest in my own company and like investing in
someone elses (stocks) I should get back several times my own investment
over time.

If all you care about is time spent working as 'investing' then I should
get even more. I spent YEARS working at near poverty working my way up.
Thats an investment.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

"Miles" <nope DeleteThis @nopers.com> wrote in message
news:AnKzj.60223$497.14797@newsfe14.phx...
> TBone wrote:
>>
>> I find that hard to believe Miles. The way that you described your
>> childhood shows that your parents liked to be involved with the upper
>> classes so I really doubt that they delt much with the poor in Mexico.
>
> Oh geez. There goes your warped biased arrogant views again. I lived in
> Mexico most of the summers and often through the rest of the year as a
> kid. In an old old airstream trailer that wasn't very big. Yes, we dealt
> with the poor in Mexico quite a bit in those years. Your hatred arrogance
> blinds you to reality.

LOL, you really need to make up your mind Miles. Just before you calimed to
have grown up around high powered politicians and business owners and now
you are making a very different claim. Why was it that you lived in Mexico?
Was that a summer place and if so, I still doubt that you delt with the
truly poor.

>
>> LOL, sorry Miles, but you really don't have a clue. I'm sure that in the
>> areas that you hung out in Mexico many of the people there are happy but
>> that does not make it the whole country.
>
> Never said it did. But you paint a picture of a country in dire straights
> of poverty and filth and it's nothing of the sort. You are vastly mistaken
> if you feel the majority of Mexicans are dirt poor, starving and
> miserable.

The majority, no but with over 40% at or below the poverty level, there are
a large number that live exactly that way. If this were not the case, then
we would not be having the problems that we now are.

>
>> The reason Miles, is that they didn't have the privilege to go to school
>> as for many, there were no schools in the area
>
> Those are the remote villages with very small populations. Thats not the
> majority of Mexico you claim are miserable. Even in those villages not
> everyone is miserable. Many despise the cities where jobs and to you
> better living standards exist. Some want the remote simple old fashioned
> village life.

Why do you feel the need to constantly spin. Please give me even one ling
to where I said everyone was miserable.

>
>> LOL, nobody ever said that everyone in Mexico wanted to leave Miles. But
>> with over 40% at or below the poverty line
>
> So 40% must be miserable huh?

Did I actually say that? Nope, that is just more of your creative editing
but I would say that most if them are not happy with their situation


> The USA has about 15% living below the poverty level. However, most at
> around the poverty level have a home, car, tv, a/c and more.

And once again, you don't know WTF you are talking about although I do see
the word play here. How typically right wing of you.

>
>> Sorry Miles, but that's how any company stays in business and every
>> manager does or at least tries to do that and no matter how much tech you
>> have, without skilled hard working people, you will still go under so it
>> seems that your employees are investing the same amount as you do.
>
> WTF are you talking about? There you go again thinking that someone who
> starts and runs a company should make no more return on their investment
> than the door greeter at Walmart. After all, that greeter 'invested' the
> same amount according to you.

What is this thing that you have with Walmart door greeters? You do realise
that the Walmart door greeter is actually part of their security system,
right??? Nobody is saying that a Walmart door greeter should make as much
as the store manager or even a department manager but if they are not maing
enough to pay the bills, why bother to do it at all?

> Ya, lets all live in a world where everything is equal, no rich, no poor,
> everyone taken care of.

Actually, I believe that they call that Heaven. Don't you believe Miles or
would you just rather not got there?

>> Why is it then that they, unlike you, get nothing more than a paycheck?
>> If you invest then you should get a return, right Miles?
>
> Returns on investment comes with taking risk. Generally the higher you're
> willing to risk then the higher the return on your investment.

Nobody is arguing that Miles but you have yet to define how much is enough.

> An employee isn't taking the same risk as someone who puts their own
> paycheck back into the company.

That is not always true. Many employees work for these companies during
their early stages and sometimes don't get paid every week and if the
company goes under, they lost their time and job and in todays market, that
is a real risk. There also comes the time where the person starting the
company is no longer putting their own paycheck back into the company and
once that point is reached, they are at no more risk than any other worker.

> If they decide to go elsewhere what do they loose?

And if they decise to stay with what you believe, what do they gain?

> If an investor walks away they loose everything they invested. They take
> a higher risk.

LOL, why would they do that?

>> Yawn, your spin is really getting old. I didn't say that the
>> receptionist could or should manage the company. What I said was that
>> just like you, he or she is doing her job to the best of their ability
>> and since you are doing nothing more than your job just like everyone
>> else, why is it that you are the only one investing or should I say, the
>> only one that will get anything long term from that investment.
>
> Because I dump a large share of my own money back into the company instead
> of my pocket. I started the company with money earned over many years of
> hard work and living near poverty. Yet to you I'm entitled to the same
> returns as a receptionist who started yesterday.




>> This one really isn't working either but that is not the point. The
>> point or the question rather, is why do these buisness owners like you
>> refuse to pay a living wage
>
> Like me huh? I pay well above market value and give well above average
> raises and benefits. Tell me Tom, how much should the walmart door
> greeter type unskilled job earn? $10/hr, 20, 30? What Tom, name it
> without being vague or generalizing.

Back to the Walmart door greeter huh?? How can anyone be specific Miles
when there are Walmarts all over the country and even in other countries.

>
>> LOL, sorry Miles, but I simply don't believe you. $10 an hour is not a
>> living wage where you are and you know that.
>
> Thats minimum wage at my company for a totally unskilled off the street
> job. So whats a living wage to you? $15, $20, $30? So an unskilled
> worker like a Walmart greeter should make a livable wage of $20/hr? You're
> being absurd here Tom!

A living wage is whatever it takes to live in a particular area. I suppose
that it could be any one of your above suggestions depending on what area
you live in. Why do you keep bringing up that Walmart greeter. Is your
argument really that weak? But even with the Walmart greeter, they are the
first and last WalMart employee that the customer sees so it would make
sense to put the best peron in that position.

>
>> If it wasn't for many of these programs Miles, there would have been a
>> revolution and I fear that we really are not all that far from it now.
>
> Oh bull. These programs have never reduced poverty. If anything they
> have raised it because they oppress people through dependency on
> Government rather than themselves. I asked you to give a solid example of
> a program that reduced poverty and you can't even name one.

I asked you to show me all of these social programs in Mexico that make it
so easy for the people there and all you came up with is a program that
proved my point. I agree, many of these programs are so crippled by people
like you that they do little more than prevent people from becoming so
desperate that they have nothing to lose and the crime rate soars.

>> but everyone who works full time should be paid a living wage.
>
> So pay based on need rather than ability. Great in concept, fails in
> reality where its been tried. What do you think would happen if we made
> the minimum wage $25/hr? Think there would be less poverty? Guess again.

Once again Miles, you resort to spin. The minimum wage should be based on
need and anything above that should be based on ability.

>
>> Yes I do
>
> So you do invest. Good for you. I hope you are only going to take back
> the amount you invested and nothing more. You are telling me that taking
> more than I invested into my company is greedy and wrong. So you do the
> same with your investments too. Fair enough for ya?

LOL, where did I say that an investment should only return what you put in?
Oh, that's right, I didn't. It's just more of your lame right wing spin.
The question Miles, is how much is enough? To you and those like you, it is
never enough. Sure, you are more than ready to define enough for your
employees with your "market value" bullshit but as far as you and others
like you are concerned, the sky is the limit, even if you have to screw your
customers and employees to do it.

>
>> LOL, 8% is far from modest in todays economy but why would that matter to
>> you.
>
> You aren't earning at least 8% on your investments? Geez Tom, you need a
> better investment adviser!! In todays economy returns well above 8% are
> easy to achieve.

LOL, once again, you more than prove that you don't know WTF you are talking
about.

>
>> No Miles, it's not but that's not what you are doing and you know it.
>
> Sure it is Tom. I invest in my own company and like investing in someone
> elses (stocks) I should get back several times my own investment over
> time.

I hope that you do but you still have yet to explain how you are investing
in your own company and don't give me that BS about you putting your pay
back into it.

> If all you care about is time spent working as 'investing' then I should
> get even more. I spent YEARS working at near poverty working my way up.
> Thats an investment.

Yes it is Miles and just by the amount that you claim to give to charity
alone, it has more than paid you back.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:
> "Miles" <nope DeleteThis @nopers.com> wrote in message
>> The USA has about 15% living below the poverty level. However, most at
>> around the poverty level have a home, car, tv, a/c and more.

> And once again, you don't know WTF you are talking about although I do see
> the word play here. How typically right wing of you.

Word play huh? I stated a fact. Most in the USA around the poverty
level do indeed have a home, car, tv, A/C and more. Deal with it.

>> Returns on investment comes with taking risk. Generally the higher you're
>> willing to risk then the higher the return on your investment.
>
> Nobody is arguing that Miles but you have yet to define how much is enough.

You certainly are arguing that issue exactly. You say employees should
get the same return on their 'investment' as the owners. Sorry, but
employees are not taking anywheres near the risks that the employees
are. Higher risk, higher returns. Plain and simple except for the
simple minded.

> That is not always true. Many employees work for these companies during
> their early stages and sometimes don't get paid every week and if the
> company goes under, they lost their time and job

The owner probably lost everything they owned if the company was in it's
early stages. The owner almost always has far more of a risk than any
employee.

> And if they decide to stay with what you believe, what do they gain?

A job and the benefits it returns, paycheck, insurance, vacations,
profit sharing, retirement plan, 401K, SS, WMC, etc. All at the owners
expense.

>> If an investor walks away they loose everything they invested. They take
>> a higher risk.
>
> LOL, why would they do that?

Why? Because owners of new businesses very likely do put a huge amount
of their own assets to start it and sustain it until it sustains itself.
They take enormous risks despite your claims they don't.

>> Like me huh? I pay well above market value and give well above average
>> raises and benefits. Tell me Tom, how much should the walmart door
>> greeter type unskilled job earn? $10/hr, 20, 30? What Tom, name it
>> without being vague or generalizing.
>
> Back to the Walmart door greeter huh?? How can anyone be specific Miles
> when there are Walmarts all over the country and even in other countries.

Figures you can't answer a simple question. You complain all workers
should make a living wage. How much should an unskilled entry job such
as a door greeter make...ok, specifically, where you live. How much
should a walmart door greeter make where you live? $10? $20? $30/hr?
What Tom...name it....or just be vague and not answer and complain
about business owners instead.

> A living wage is whatever it takes to live in a particular area. I suppose
> that it could be any one of your above suggestions depending on what area
> you live in. Why do you keep bringing up that Walmart greeter.

Because its a classic example of an unskilled job that you feel should
earn a living wage yet refuse to state just how much they should make.
You keep saying livable wage but refuse to state how much such a worker
should make. Tell me in a particular city, I don't care....NAME IT TOM!
You can't but you can whine really good!

> Once again Miles, you resort to spin. The minimum wage should be based on
> need and anything above that should be based on ability.

So lets make minimum wage $20/hr. Would that reduce poverty one bit?
Hell no Tom but you'll never comprehend why it would not change a thing.

> LOL, where did I say that an investment should only return what you put in?

You did when you told me I was wrong for getting back more from my
company than my original investment. You told me that was greed.

>> You aren't earning at least 8% on your investments? Geez Tom, you need a
>> better investment adviser!! In todays economy returns well above 8% are
>> easy to achieve.
>
> LOL, once again, you more than prove that you don't know WTF you are talking
> about.

Sucks to be you then Tom? I'm earning well above 8% on my stock
investments. If you're not then you've got serious financial investment
problems you need to deal with rather than whine here!
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics