LSU to file for bankruptcy?

[GoIrish41]

Yeah...Like Jindal has anything to do with the massive pension expense or other out of control expenses. But he sure puts a target on his back for trying to clean it up. This is just a ploy in my opinion to bust up the state legislature into action. If they can make Jindal stink a little along the way...that's a bonus.

He has everything to do with the budget shortfalls in the state. Lowering taxes when there are budget deficits has been the calling card of GOP politicians for decades. It seems like a bad idea because it is. And the fix always seems to be to attack public institutions or anti poverty programs as the problem. The real problem is that the GOP math does not work. Taxes keep our society functioning and no matter how much people do not like paying them they probably hate more working for 30 or 40 years and then having the carpet pulled out from under them because dumb politicians push policies that are nonsensical. And the ones who are demonized after living up to their end of the employment bargain ... They hate it worse.

 

[pkt77242]

How Bobby Jindal Wrecked Louisiana | The American Conservative

 

[Monk]

Sorry but you lack perspective here.

I understand the idea that someone 40 years ago took a job that paid $X in a salary but came with a pension. That salary, back then, was typically lower than the private sector. That employee could have looked at the whole picture and said it was a pretty good deal overall.

Where many public sectors have run into issues is over the last 40 years via union contracts purchased with votes is the salaries have gone up to the point of being equal or greater to the private sector. The sector without the guaranteed pension by and large. While at the same time the pension and it's triggers from 40+ years ago remain untouched or not modified enough to account for the massive increases in salary.

They have gotten gimmicks implemented on how pensions are calculated. For example, in San Diego a fireman's pension was based off the highest level they worked. It could have been for a year or a day. So what happened? Well at some point during their last year...everyone above the person just so happened to take the day off on the same day. So a guy could be promoted for the day. THAT IS THEFT. I could go on for days of similar examples all over the US.

The problem with people who think pensions are being attacked is that they usually approach the subject just like you are. From a position of the public servant who did no wrong. When in reality, unions have been robbing the taxpayers for decades. Unions negotiate under the collective whole but the union members cry as an individual. That's disingenuous at best.

Here is a question for you. You said people take these positions, in part, because of the pensions. We all know this to be the case. So why is it that when people who have a pension never factor in their guaranteed pension when they discuss their compensation?

If a teacher averages $60k a year over the course of their career and after 30 years is guaranteed a pension of 75%, that guarantee needs to be factored into their cost to be in a classroom.

So you take someone who is 25 and retires at 55 and lives to 75 God willing. That's 50 years of compensation ($60k x 25y = $1.5M + $45k x 20y = $900k) for a total of $2.4M. Apply that to the 25 years in the classroom and it's $96K a year. But when the picket signs go up, the numbers used are not the total compensation. Heck, the numbers used are not the average over the course of a career. It's usually the low end of the wage scale for the newest members in the union.

The math is rough but you know it to be true. When public servants start talking about their compensation rather than their salary maybe then you can have an honest conversation.

Also in this calculation lets not forget actual days worked. I know many teachers will say they work 10-12 hours a day and not just the 7hrs that is in their contracts (New York State), which I believe some actually do, but I know far to many that barely work 40 hrs a week. Also there is no denying the time off which gives many teachers the opportunity to make a second income in the summer months. I'm not saying they don't deserve to be paid well, but please don't cry poverty to me.

 

[ND NYC]

BP should pay the shortfall

 

[Redbar]

How Bobby Jindal Wrecked Louisiana | The American Conservative

Excerpts from article:

"As the story goes on to say, Jindal cannot be held solely responsible; the state legislature, dominated by Republicans, has its hands dirty too. From the Baton Rouge Advocate:"

"Again, it would be wrong to blame this entirely on Jindal. Our legislature has a lot to do with it. But the Louisiana legislature is not running for president. In Politico, Tyler Bridges sums up Jindal’s problems – and why, in my view, they are going to strangle his nascent presidential bid in the cradle."

"to what extent was Jindal following the orthodox Republican playbook, governing not as a commonsense manager, but as an ideologue?"


I will add one caveat which is that Jindal built up such a war chest leading up to and during his first campaign, and then ran largely unopposed in his second term (which took him to his term limit in the office) that he had enough money to seriously impact any state legislative race that he wanted to, and he and his handler, Tim Teeple (think Karl Rove), let everyone know it. Because of this Bobby Jindal has had a considerably greater influence and say on what has gone on in the Louisiana legislature the last four years.

However, Ryan Booth at the end of the article is correct when he talks about the unsustainability of the Louisiana higher education system do to overlapping parochial concerns when he says:

"3) The higher ed funding crisis does NOT exist because of a lack of willingness to spend on education. Louisiana actually ranks 18th in higher ed spending per capita. The problem exists because we have way too many four-year universities. In New Orleans, UNO and SUNO literally sit right next to each other. In the sparsely populated northeast part of the state, we have LA Tech, ULM and Grambling. This is, again, a structural problem that isn’t Bobby Jindal’s fault. What is needed is not cuts to LSU, but the bravery in the legislature to change a couple of lower-tier 4-year institutions into community colleges, killing duplicative programs that accomplish little and graduate almost no one."

Good Article!

 

[ND NYC]

is Jindal really running for President?

good luck with that

(he was horrible even before this thing popped up)

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Another example of what I alluded to yesterday, besides Jindal:

A friend of mine and several of my kids were riding with me yesterday as we pulled up to a major intersection. Both cars ended up making a right turn. The car ahead of us with its gas cover opened, sported several bumper stickers, including "I stand with Rand!" Now this car had its indicator on, and pulled up to the intersection when the car ahead of it made a right turn on red. Then the indicator went off. The car sat there. Finally it turned on red into oncoming left turn traffic from the other direction.

My friend looked back at my kids and told them that the guy ahead of them was a Libertarian, and could tell because the guy was so good at everything. My friend further instructed that Libertarians had a high personal self image, and didn't see why they needed to pay for things that they could do better or cheaper, themselves.

My son, out of nowhere said, I thought they were just cheapskates!

 

[Redbar]

Sorry but you lack perspective here.

The problem with people who think pensions are being attacked is that they usually approach the subject just like you are. From a position of the public servant who did no wrong. When in reality, unions have been robbing the taxpayers for decades. Unions negotiate under the collective whole but the union members cry as an individual. That's disingenuous at best.

I do not object to your individual and anecdotal points. But more to your general demonization of unions in the fabric of American Workers rights. Unions were necessitated by the complete imbalance of power for the individual worker vis a vis the large company. There is nothing disingenuous about trying to balance that power by using the ONE chip the workers have which is number.

Further, if that argument is not compelling to you, how is the behavior you described any more disingenuous than the bastardization of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that corporations have used to assert individual rights when in their best interest to do so; while still retaining the individual shelter, anonymity, indemnity, pool of resources, etc...etc..., that the corporation allows?Thereby, enabling them to play "the poor little guy" and the "big fish" depending on the particular fight.

On a side note, how can these self described "strict constructionist" Supreme Court Justices, continually expand corporate personage using the 14th Amendment, when it is clear that when that amendment was drafted, argued about and ratified, corporations and their "rights" we're not the intended subject at all. It is a complete joke on the American people. No, I wish it were a joke, it is disingenuous at best!

 

[dales5050]

I do not object to your individual and anecdotal points. But more to your general demonization of unions in the fabric of American Workers rights. Unions were necessitated by the complete imbalance of power for the individual worker vis a vis the large company. There is nothing disingenuous about trying to balance that power by using the ONE chip the workers have which is number.

The primary issues that caused for unions to be created, by and large, no longer exist. Workers rights are now coved by labor law has resolved those issues. They are nothing more than collective bargaining tools outside of police and fire.

To suggest that workers have one chip, collective bargaining, is a myth.

Further, if that argument is not compelling to you, how is the behavior you described any more disingenuous than the bastardization of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that corporations have used to assert individual rights when in their best interest to do so; while still retaining the individual shelter, anonymity, indemnity, pool of resources, etc...etc..., that the corporation allows?Thereby, enabling them to play "the poor little guy" and the "big fish" depending on the particular fight.

This is a pretty typical off the shelf reply, so if you want to show some more depth I'd be happy to engage.

Don't take my provided perspective on unions and apply your personal opinions on corporations as mine. The large and power corporations you speak are in the thousands in the US. I am no fan of these either.

 

[connor_in]

INTERMISSION TIME!!!

 

[ND NYC]

a must read for this thread:

Looting the Pension Funds: How Wall Street Robs Public Workers | Rolling Stone

 

[IrishLax]

a must read for this thread:

Looting the Pension Funds: How Wall Street Robs Public Workers | Rolling Stone

Too bad the must read is about 5x as long as it should be. It was absolutely captivating until it completely changed topic multiple times and then I just gave up halfway through.

Don't know if this was answered later, but yeah so Rhode Island is paying tons to hedge funds. What kind of return are they getting on those fees? And how is the budget?

EDIT: Also, it goes without saying but the writing style of the author really undermines their credibility. In addition to the superfluous word count and Helter-skelter style where no attempt is made at coherently tying things together (and instead, the reader is left to make their own conclusions from implied premises) there are gems like this:

A notorious example in Rhode Island is, of course, 38 Studios, the doomed video-game venture of blabbering, Christ-humping ex-Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, who received a $75 million loan guarantee from the state at a time when local politicians were pleading poverty.

What in the actual fuck is that supposed to even mean?

 

[pkt77242]

Too bad the must read is about 5x as long as it should be. It was absolutely captivating until it completely changed topic multiple times and then I just gave up halfway through.

Don't know if this was answered later, but yeah so Rhode Island is paying tons to hedge funds. What kind of return are they getting on those fees? And how is the budget?

EDIT: Also, it goes without saying but the writing style of the author really undermines their credibility. In addition to the superfluous word count and Helter-skelter style where no attempt is made at coherently tying things together (and instead, the reader is left to make their own conclusions from implied premises) there are gems like this:


What in the actual fuck is that supposed to even mean?

Rhode Island Has Lost $372 Million As State Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street

About 12% before fees on average. That is below average for a pension fund according to the article. In fact that article makes her strategy look really bad even before the higher fees.

 

[Redbar]

The primary issues that caused for unions to be created, by and large, no longer exist. Workers rights are now coved by labor law has resolved those issues. They are nothing more than collective bargaining tools outside of police and fire.

To suggest that workers have one chip, collective bargaining, is a myth.

I agree that the circumstances that necessitated the formation of unions have changed considerably, particularly in workers safety, workplace conditions, and man hours, however, the issue of negotiating a wage or a benefit package has not changed and without unions people doing similar work have one stop gap: minimum wage. There is still a huge imbalance here, just ask most any Wal-Mart employee.

This is a pretty typical off the shelf reply, so if you want to show some more depth I'd be happy to engage.

I honestly do not hear that argument being made very frequently, it is something I rarely hear on the evening news, nor do I hear many conversations about the abuse or misuse of the 14th amendment by American corporations in my daily life here in southern Louisiana. When I have it has been completely framed by the campaign finance issues highlighted by the Citizens United case. So I apologize for the shallow, packaged and well worn argument in point two. I could most certainly benefit from moving in your deeper more profound pools. I apologize, no need to "engage".

Don't take my provided perspective on unions and apply your personal opinions on corporations as mine. The large and power corporations you speak are in the thousands in the US. I am no fan of these either.

I didn't try to provide anything as your opinion and certainly not my opinion of corporations, I simply tried to explain my understanding of 1. the environment that NECESSITATED the formation of unions, as a tactic to a system that was and still is fundamentally imbalanced to the individual worker; 2. ask you how that tactic was any more disingenuous than the behaviors of the people across the table. Who's behaviors I might add gave cause to the formation of unions in the first place. I never claimed to know all of your opinions on these matters, I disagreed with a statement you made among many, and pointed out why. I am sorry you took that as a slight. That seems to happen a lot. I am glad you find some of the practices of their corporate adversaries equally disingenuous.

 

[dales5050]

I agree that the circumstances that necessitated the formation of unions have changed considerably, particularly in workers safety, workplace conditions, and man hours, however, the issue of negotiating a wage or a benefit package has not changed and without unions people doing similar work have one stop gap: minimum wage. There is still a huge imbalance here, just ask most any Wal-Mart employee.

If you're suggesting that w/o a union, workers under a CB by a union, would be paid minimum wage....you have done a better job in showing just how damaging the unions are than I ever could.

The minimum wage, regardless of what the number is, is the lowest you can pay someone legally. It's for the lowest denominator employee. If a union is able to negotiate these workers to the middle class...that's a huge problem.

I honestly do not hear that argument being made very frequently, it is something I rarely hear on the evening news, nor do I hear many conversations about the abuse or misuse of the 14th amendment by American corporations in my daily life here in southern Louisiana. When I have it has been completely framed by the campaign finance issues highlighted by the Citizens United case. So I apologize for the shallow, packaged and well worn argument in point two. I could most certainly benefit from moving in your deeper more profound pools. I apologize, no need to "engage".

Again with the corporations.... That's all people like you have. Distraction.

When someone points out the flaws in one area you wag your finger at something else and say look how bad those guys are. It's a pretty weak argument.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Your pay should be based off the value you bring to a company.

If someone else can do the same work for less, you have a problem.

 

[GoIrish41]

Your pay should be based off the value you bring to a company.

If someone else can do the same work for less, you have a problem.

So it is a race to the bottom, then? When does it stop and what sort of security does it offer for U.S. citizen employees? These types of arguments demonstrate why unions are not obsolete. These arguments unchecked lead to huge disparity in wealth and out of control corporate influence over our government, which, in turn, leads to further breakdowns of employee rights and protections. Don't we have plenty of evidence that this is bad for almost everyone but a lucky few? These arguments lead to oligopolies in which the vast magoriy of workers get the scraps left by the likes of the Koch brothers as they watch their air and drinking water being poisoned as their employers hoard vast fortunes. There is always someone willing to work for less, and that's why so many jobs get shipped to places where pure desperation overcomes any type of human dignity or concerns for the welfare of the workers. Good for a few ... Terrible for everyone else because ultimately the companies set the "value" of what any employee brings to the table.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

From the article :

One of the most garish early experiments in "alternative investments" came in Ohio in the late 1990s, after the Republican-controlled state assembly passed a law loosening restrictions on what kinds of things state funds could invest in. Sometime later, an investigation by the Toledo Blade revealed that the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation had bought into rare-coin funds run by a GOP fundraiser named Thomas Noe. Through Noe, Ohio put $50 million into coins and "other collectibles" – including Beanie Babies.



The scandal had repercussions all over the country, but not what you'd expect. James Drew, one of the reporters who broke the story, notes that a consequence of "Coingate" was that states stopped giving out information about where public money is invested. "If they learned anything, it's not to stop doing it, but to keep it secret," says Drew.

There were many more than just Tom Noe involved in the "Coingate" scandal. I knew many of them personally. Though I didn't have intimate knowledge of what was happening and when, I can assure you that some of the "illegal gains" from this were used to fund political candidates, when there were much greater restrictions on campaign amounts.

Part of the whole plan was to trade paper gains for cash out and give that cash to certain operatives that would in turn contribute it to a specific presidential campaign.

So not only was this a pension rape, its elements contained actions that were in many people's opinion embezzlement, fraud, and money laundering, punishable by additional penalties afforded under the RICO Act.

This case is central to the whole conversation about how to rape a pension fund. The fallout from this scandal taught Ohio lawmakers to hide their shenanigans from the public, not to make things more transparent!

It has become the model for all other in process thefts. Check and see whether your state publishes its investments for public pension funds!

 

[RallySonsOfND]

So it is a race to the bottom, then? When does it stop and what sort of security does it offer for U.S. citizen employees? These types of arguments demonstrate why unions are not obsolete. These arguments unchecked lead to huge disparity in wealth and out of control corporate influence over our government, which, in turn, leads to further breakdowns of employee rights and protections. Don't we have plenty of evidence that this is bad for almost everyone but a lucky few? These arguments lead to oligopolies in which the vast magoriy of workers get the scraps left by the likes of the Koch brothers as they watch their air and drinking water being poisoned as their employers hoard vast fortunes. There is always someone willing to work for less, and that's why so many jobs get shipped to places where pure desperation overcomes any type of human dignity or concerns for the welfare of the workers. Good for a few ... Terrible for everyone else because ultimately the companies set the "value" of what any employee brings to the table.

I know you and I are never going to agree on this.

I do think unions had their place when workers were being treated terribly. However with labor laws, and what not in place now they have become much more political, and more of a 'get what we think we deserve' from those big bad corporate executives.

In most cases unions hurt job growth. There is a reason the foreign automakers set up shop in Right to Work states.

There may always been someone willing to work for less, but the key is, are you in a position where that person is a threat? I know I'm not.

I love the wealthy, I was employed by 3 prior to working for the publicly traded company I work for now.

 

[GoIrish41]

I know you and I are never going to agree on this.

I do think unions had their place when workers were being treated terribly. However with labor laws, and what not in place now they have become much more political, and more of a 'get what we think we deserve' from those big bad corporate executives.

In most cases unions hurt job growth. There is a reason the foreign automakers set up shop in Right to Work states.

There may always been someone willing to work for less, but the key is, are you in a position where that person is a threat? I know I'm not.

I love the wealthy, I was employed by 3 prior to working for the publicly traded company I work for now.

if unions went away then the growing political power would lead to dismantling the labor laws that protect workers today. It is the work of the unions that put those laws on the books in the first place. And that did not happen without much pushback from big business. Workers would soon go back to being treated poorly again. minimim wage levels are just the start. Benefits would be stripped. Oversight removed leaving companies to do as they wish. Safety will begin to be less of a concern. Working hours would go up and wages would shrink for everyone -- yes even you!! When a handful of corporations have all the power they are a handshake deal away from lowering wages of everyone artificially and you having to accept their decision because you have no alternative. If they strip away the social safety net you really have no place to turn. You are at their mercy. I do not know what business you are in but unless you are in very rarefied company you are not immune. You may be among the last affected but you will most certainly be affected. This is a return to the Guilded Age and almost everyone is on the losing team.

I do not dislike rich people. I just believe that pure capitalism ultimately leads to a predictable end game and unions are the primary obstacle to that happening. Nobody should have the sort of power that oligopolies would most certainly bring about.

 

[Redbar]

If you're suggesting that w/o a union, workers under a CB by a union, would be paid minimum wage....you have done a better job in showing just how damaging the unions are than I ever could.

The minimum wage, regardless of what the number is, is the lowest you can pay someone legally. It's for the lowest denominator employee. If a union is able to negotiate these workers to the middle class...that's a huge problem.





Again with the corporations.... That's all people like you have. Distraction.

When someone points out the flaws in one area you wag your finger at something else and say look how bad those guys are. It's a pretty weak argument.

I assure you that you know absolutely nothing about me. Maybe a little about people you think are like me and far less about most things than you think you know.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

if unions went away then the growing political power would lead to dismantling the labor laws that protect workers today. It is the work of the unions that put those laws on the books in the first place. And that did not happen without much pushback from big business. Workers would soon go back to being treated poorly again. minimim wage levels are just the start. Benefits would be stripped. Oversight removed leaving companies to do as they wish. Safety will begin to be less of a concern. Working hours would go up and wages would shrink for everyone -- yes even you!! When a handful of corporations have all the power they are a handshake deal away from lowering wages of everyone artificially and you having to accept their decision because you have no alternative. If they strip away the social safety net you really have no place to turn. You are at their mercy. I do not know what business you are in but unless you are in very rarefied company you are not immune. You may be among the last affected but you will most certainly be affected. This is a return to the Guilded Age and almost everyone is on the losing team.

I do not dislike rich people. I just believe that pure capitalism ultimately leads to a predictable end game and unions are the primary obstacle to that happening. Nobody should have the sort of power that oligopolies would most certainly bring about.

What about the power of reputation? In this day and age of technology where people have access to information 24/7 do you really think corporations are going to start treating employees like trash? Example A: McDonalds. They are having a huge reputation crisis and business is taking a brutal hit.

How about the power of competition? In a TRUE free market (not the government orchestrated system we have now that picks winners and losers), an alternative will always pop up. 5 years ago did anyone think their cell phone bills would either be cut or just given more for the same amount of money? Both of which are happening right now due to competition among carriers. 2 year contracts are basically a thing of the past.

Unions of today are a sham of what unions in the past were.

 

[GoIrish41]

What about the power of reputation? In this day and age of technology where people have access to information 24/7 do you really think corporations are going to start treating employees like trash? Example A: McDonalds. They are having a huge reputation crisis and business is taking a brutal hit.

How about the power of competition? In a TRUE free market (not the government orchestrated system we have now that picks winners and losers), an alternative will always pop up. 5 years ago did anyone think their cell phone bills would either be cut or just given more for the same amount of money? Both of which are happening right now due to competition among carriers. 2 year contracts are basically a thing of the past.

Unions of today are a sham of what unions in the past were.

I do not disagree and the weaker they get the more powerful corporations get. Funny how that works, huh? We should all hope that they have a resurgence because we are just at the beginning of what Citizens United uncorked.

To competition and reputation ... What happens when a few companies control whole industries and there are no regulators watching the store? Those things become far less important when it only takes a lunch meeting with a few corporate titans to conclude we can all do better if we fix prices OPEC style and exert some real control. It is all about businessmen businessing in the new frontier. Buckle up!!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Every anti-union argument, and every argument for limiting pensions presented in this thread is an example of attacking those from whom you want to steal. The Rolling Stone article named it as a tactic, and some posters in this thread have pointed it out at times, but every anti-union, anti-fund pension argument is an attack on those persons in question, with no empirical evidence and little if any anecdotal evidence.

So far, in this thread I have seen little but an argument against people, with no motivation but greed.

 

[dales5050]

Every anti-union argument, and every argument for limiting pensions presented in this thread is an example of attacking those from whom you want to steal. The Rolling Stone article named it as a tactic, and some posters in this thread have pointed it out at times, but every anti-union, anti-fund pension argument is an attack on those persons in question, with no empirical evidence and little if any anecdotal evidence.

So far, in this thread I have seen little but an argument against people, with no motivation but greed.

Citing a Rolling Stone article...that's rich. That rag makes up things as they go and are unapologetic when they lie. Expressing an opinion on how unions and pensions are obsolete and archaic is not an attack on a message board is not. It's an observation.

But what's most rich is how people claim to be on the same side as American workers but when push comes to shove and price/product is compared, they do what is best for them.

My observation is people are always in favor of the idea but hardly ever focus on the implementation.

People always find ease in saying they support teachers and the education system...until they have kids of their own. That's when the education of little Johnny or Jenny is the only thing that matters.

Lastly, people don't need to attack the union or pension systems. They are going to die off on their own because they are simply unsustainable. It's just a matter of time.

 

[dales5050]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Fashion (HBO)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VdLf4fihP78" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pretty good video that sums up several of the conversation here. 17 minutes on how bad the large corporations are for using child labor...which they are. 0 minutes on how Americans are bad for spending billions on cheap clothing.

Unless everything you wear is a part of the 2% of clothing that is still made the US...you're a part of the problem. But pointing the finger at companies like the GAP or Wal-Mart does not due much when you turn around and spend $100 there during the holidays because you have 35 people to shop for and need to get something for everyone.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Citing a Rolling Stone article...that's rich. That rag makes up things as they go and are unapologetic when they lie. Expressing an opinion on how unions and pensions are obsolete and archaic is not an attack on a message board is not. It's an observation.

But what's most rich is how people claim to be on the same side as American workers but when push comes to shove and price/product is compared, they do what is best for them.

My observation is people are always in favor of the idea but hardly ever focus on the implementation.

People always find ease in saying they support teachers and the education system...until they have kids of their own. That's when the education of little Johnny or Jenny is the only thing that matters.

Lastly, people don't need to attack the union or pension systems. They are going to die off on their own because they are simply unsustainable. It's just a matter of time.

Is there anyone or thing of which you are not critical? Really.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Fashion (HBO)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VdLf4fihP78" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pretty good video that sums up several of the conversation here. 17 minutes on how bad the large corporations are for using child labor...which they are. 0 minutes on how Americans are bad for spending billions on cheap clothing.

Unless everything you wear is a part of the 2% of clothing that is still made the US...you're a part of the problem. But pointing the finger at companies like the GAP or Wal-Mart does not due much when you turn around and spend $100 there during the holidays because you have 35 people to shop for and need to get something for everyone.

You are brilliant! Use a formula thought up and enacted by those you support and blame the American public for falling for it; TRUE GENIUS!

 

[dales5050]

You are brilliant! Use a formula thought up and enacted by those you support and blame the American public for falling for it; TRUE GENIUS!

Just who do I support again?

You seem to be mistaken. I don't support large corporations and I don't support unions. I see the wrong in both sides.

I guess some just like the comfort of the box.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Just who do I support again?

You seem to be mistaken. I don't support large corporations and I don't support unions. I see the wrong in both sides.

I guess some just like the comfort of the box.

Zactly!