LSU to file for bankruptcy?

[GoIrish41]

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.

Do you really want to blame this on people who are purchasing goods as cheaply as they can when many of them are just scraping by themselves? It is a lot to ask when the price of goods in virtually every consumable category have risen dramatically over the past several years as wages remain stagnant (and real wages plummet) . An increasingly large number of American consumers are just getting by themselves (albeit in a whole different world than the folks who are stitching gym shorts together in China).

Don't look at the end state, look at the factors that made this all possible and ask yourself "who is responsible for all of this".' Our government is, at best, ambivalent about human rights with our trade partners around the globe. They overlook despicable working conditions because the corporations who profit from them lean on politicians to turn the other way. Our government seems focused on free trade agreements that would reward the nations who exploit their workers and pull jobs away from Americans. Why? Because corporations lobby for such agreements so they can continue to profit from exploited labor, and they get their way more times than not. These agreements limit or eliminate tariffs that would essentially reward companies for producing goods in American factories and punish those who deploy inhumane labor practices. What is the result? Corporations use this uneven playing field they built with their government partners to send American jobs to these places and, as a result, the cost of goods goes down. That's fortunate since many Americans no longer have jobs which would allow them to pay higher prices for goods. All of these factors are on our government, who is bought and sold by ... wait for it .... corporations.

I know it is a tried and true GOP argument to blame this all on consumers, but that is a bogus argument. It ignores the fact that corporations are forcing this to happen. They win on both ends -- they get cheap labor on the front end and they pay their workers a pittance on the other end, thereby exploiting two labor markets on opposite sides of the globe. Their sheer size allows them to push out competition in communities all across the country, and they sell their junky products to consumers who cannot afford to buy better products, because they don't earn enough money.

At the same time, they use their significant influence in the government to lobby against a minimum wage that would help to ease the pressure put on consumers. Corporations jigger with minimum hours their employees can work to avoid paying benefits. It is a system of their own design, sprung on Americans because corrupt legislators are seeking to get re-elected and that costs big money. But, no worries. These corporations are now people and they can give as much as they want to ensure the most compliant stooges sit in the seats of power.

None of this is the individual consumers' fault. Corporations make the rules and they impose themselves on consumers, exploit labor and become fabulously wealthy by being morally bankrupt. The thing that is amazing to me remains that there are people in this country who continue to support the policies and people that allows all of this shit to continue.

 

[dales5050]

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

Plenty of things.

I guess saying both large corporations and unions are bad and it's the responsibility of the individual throws people for a loop and they don't know which stock answer to throw back in reply.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Plenty of things.

I guess saying both large corporations and unions are bad and it's the responsibility of the individual throws people for a loop and they don't know which stock answer to throw back in reply.

My daughter-in-law has a student teacher in her classroom, who is quite a character. She has a bumper sticker on her car, "Mean people are mean." I laughed my ass off. How true it is, and it is exactly the point I am trying to make here.

 

[dales5050]

Do you really want to blame this on people who are purchasing goods as cheaply as they can when many of them are just scraping by themselves.

Do you really think everyone who buys at the GAP is scraping buy. Do you think parents who purchase what's in style for their kids each season are scraping by. That's nothing more than hyperbole.

Also, I am not blaming anyone. I am simply making an observation that people in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Ever time I go to Target..it's packed. Every time I go to the mall during the holidays...it's packed. Black Friday..forget about it. You know what's not always busy? Goodwill.

When push comes to shove, supporting the American worker...more importantly supporting the local business with your money is much more difficult than doing so on a message board. It comes at a cost and one that many choose not to pay.

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[GoIrish41]

Do you really think everyone who buys at the GAP is scraping buy. Do you think parents who purchase what's in style for their kids each season are scraping by. That's nothing more than hyperbole.

Also, I am not blaming anyone. I am simply making an observation that people in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Ever time I go to Target..it's packed. Every time I go to the mall during the holidays...it's packed. Black Friday..forget about it. You know what's not always busy? Goodwill.

When push comes to shove, supporting the American worker...more importantly supporting the local business with your money is much more difficult than doing so on a message board. It comes at a cost and one that many choose not to pay.

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

My grandfather owned a hardware store when I was a kid. He got pushed out of business when True Value opened up shop in his town. They in turn got pushed out when Home Depot came about. The fact of the matter is that small town businesses cannot compete with the bulk purchasing power of these huge companies. They don't get huge tax breaks to open up shop which all goes to their bottom line. It is not a level playing field for family owned businesses, whether they are restaurants, clothing stores, hair salons, or hardware stores. The big guys write the rules to suit them and they always end up winning. These small local stores you are talking about are going the way of the dodo, but even if that was not the case, individual's buying a hammer in Center Hall, Pa., at the local family-owned hardware store are going to pay considerably more than if they just pop into the hardware isle at WalMart. They are going to do it because they have other things they need to buy, and the prices of all goods and services cost more while their wages remain frozen. I get that you think that if they were really committed to doing what is right, they would pay more at the local hardware store. That is simply not realistic in the world that has grown up around us. It is more about surviving than voting with ones pocketbook. It's an uneven playing field, largely built on a foundation in which unions are powerless against big business money and self-serving politicians.

 

[dales5050]

My grandfather owned a hardware store when I was a kid. He got pushed out of business when True Value opened up shop in his town. They in turn got pushed out when Home Depot came about. The fact of the matter is that small town businesses cannot compete with the bulk purchasing power of these huge companies. They don't get huge tax breaks to open up shop which all goes to their bottom line. It is not a level playing field for family owned businesses, whether they are restaurants, clothing stores, hair salons, or hardware stores. The big guys write the rules to suit them and they always end up winning. These small local stores you are talking about are going the way of the dodo, but even if that was not the case, individual's buying a hammers in Center Hall, Pa., at the local family-owned hardware store are going to pay considerably more than if they just pop into the hardware isle at WalMart. They are going to do it because they have other things they need to buy, and the prices of all goods and services cost more while their wages remain frozen. I get that you think that if they were really committed to doing what is right, they would pay more at the local hardware store. That is simply not realistic in the world that has grown up around us. It is more about surviving than voting with ones pocketbook. It's an uneven playing field, largely built on a foundation in which unions are powerless against big business money and self-serving politicians.

Wal-Mart is not forcing anyone to purchase their products. They are given the power because people want more these days. Its my opinion that it's unreasonable to place 100% of the blame on the large corporations that are giving people what they want.

Small town businesses can't compete with large corporations because they are not the same product. They never were. Price and convenience have replaced quality and familiarity. Until you change this paradox, it does not matter what you pay people.

 

[potownhero]

My grandfather owned a hardware store when I was a kid. He got pushed out of business when True Value opened up shop in his town. They in turn got pushed out when Home Depot came about. The fact of the matter is that small town businesses cannot compete with the bulk purchasing power of these huge companies. They don't get huge tax breaks to open up shop which all goes to their bottom line. It is not a level playing field for family owned businesses, whether they are restaurants, clothing stores, hair salons, or hardware stores. The big guys write the rules to suit them and they always end up winning. These small local stores you are talking about are going the way of the dodo, but even if that was not the case, individual's buying a hammer in Center Hall, Pa., at the local family-owned hardware store are going to pay considerably more than if they just pop into the hardware isle at WalMart. They are going to do it because they have other things they need to buy, and the prices of all goods and services cost more while their wages remain frozen. I get that you think that if they were really committed to doing what is right, they would pay more at the local hardware store. That is simply not realistic in the world that has grown up around us. It is more about surviving than voting with ones pocketbook. It's an uneven playing field, largely built on a foundation in which unions are powerless against big business money and self-serving politicians.

Do you realize that most new government regulations are regressive and place bigger burdens on small businesses... tipping the playing field even more towards big businesses? I only say this because, and correct me if I'm wrong, I've noticed that you have been in favor of many of these burdens like increased minimum wage, obamacare, and etc.

Regulatory Impact on Small Business Establishments | Research | American Action Forum

 

[GoIrish41]

Wal-Mart is not forcing anyone to purchase their products. They are given the power because people want more these days. Its my opinion that it's unreasonable to place 100% of the blame on the large corporations that are giving people what they want.

Small town businesses can't compete with large corporations because they are not the same product. They never were. Price and convenience have replaced quality and familiarity. Until you change this paradox, it does not matter what you pay people.

You don't seem to mind placing 100% of the blame on consumers who are, as individuals, powerless to demand anything better. Wages, working conditions, benefits improve when consumers/employees collectively demand they do. They do that by forming unions. And, they are sort of forcing people to purchase their products by putting other retailers out of business. WalMarts are typically in rural communities (although I've read they are going to try to push into big city markets this year) that have fewer alternatives. Run those off and you more or less have a monopoly. A single WalMart can drive away sporting good stores, clothing stores, grocers, optomitirists, electronics stores, tire stores, and a host of others. All of these are "the same product," and the mom and pops simply cannot compete with the big boys. When I was a kid, I could ride my bike down Main Street and pass a locally owned and operated grocery store, a flourist, a newspaper stand, clothing store, an eye doctor, a stationary/card store, and a sporting goods store on the way to my grandfather's hardware story. If I kept riding for a mile or so I was in the midst of dairy farms and cornfields. There were no other businesses for miles around. All these stores were all colocated in a block or two and far more convenient than driving 15 miles to go to a WalMart with their parking lots filled with cars from 10 or 12 local communities. That same street where I used to ride my bike if filled with seedy tatoo shops, second-hand stores, and a massage parlor. The grocer was bought out by a big regional chain, but isn't really frequented much -- at least not compared to the WalMart a couple towns over.

I will agree about the prices, but not the convenience. And, again, prices are lower because of the massive purchasing power of WalMart and the fact that they have their own supply chains that exploit workers on both ends. It isn't giving people what they want, it is limiting their choices so they don't have any other alternatives.

 

[GoIrish41]

Do you realize that most new government regulations are regressive and place bigger burdens on small businesses... tipping the playing field even more towards big businesses? I only say this because, and correct me if I'm wrong, I've noticed that you have been in favor of many of these burdens like increased minimum wage, obamacare, and etc.

Regulatory Impact on Small Business Establishments | Research | American Action Forum

Most new government regulations are designed to fix situations in which corporations have taken advantage of a lack of regulations. The laws that are being written now are primarily ghost written by corporations and their lawyers, so it is not surprising that they negatively affect small business. I'm in favor of increasing the minimum wage, yes, but I do not believe that it would cause businesses to close their doors. In fact, I strongly believe that raising the minimum wage would increase business across the board because people would have more money in their pockets to spend at said businesses. I understand the dire warnings from the right are contrary to my opinion, but they were wrong about trickle down economics, too.

 

[dales5050]

You don't seem to mind placing 100% of the blame on consumers who are, as individuals, powerless to demand anything better.

I'll stop you here. Outside of you just wanting an echo chamber, I am confused as to how you would make the suggestion that I am placing 100% of the blame anywhere. If anything, I am the only one who is not.

In each conversation I have had with you, it is your view that is absolute and narrow. The reality is nothing is absolute.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'll stop you here. Outside of you just wanting an echo chamber, I am confused as to how you would make the suggestion that I am placing 100% of the blame anywhere. If anything, I am the only one who is not.

In each conversation I have had with you, it is your view that is absolute and narrow. The reality is nothing is absolute.

You go ahead and pretend that you've been right down the middle on this topic as if we can't go back and read your posts. You've spent the half the morning defending corporations, and when Bogs called you out on it is the only time that you even suggested that you "don't support corporations." I'm not even sure what you mean by that, because you offered no evidence of it and almost instantly went back to supporting corporations and blaming consumers. You enjoy your self-righteous little tantrum and have yourself a nice day.

 

[dales5050]

I understand the dire warnings from the right are contrary to my opinion, but they were wrong about trickle down economics, too.

Heh.

Let's talk about economics from the left.

Want to know how companies can save 23% on wages? Hire only women. After all, there is a wage gap between what men and women earn..right?

Of course, when you dive into the details like hours worked, education, experience and job choices...men and women earn the same. But that does not fit the simplistic narrative and oh so juicy soundbite that women earn less than men.

Speaking in generalities and absolutes is for simpletons.

 

[dales5050]

You go ahead and pretend that you've been right down the middle on this topic as if we can't go back and read your posts. You've spent the half the morning defending corporations, and when Bogs called you out on it is the only time that you even suggested that you "don't support corporations." I'm not even sure what you mean by that, because you offered no evidence of it and almost instantly went back to supporting corporations and blaming consumers. You enjoy your self-righteous little tantrum and have yourself a nice day.

Suggesting that one side is not 100% responsible is not defending them. You're narrow-minded. You like to live in an echo chamber. Have fun with that.

You do the same.

 

[GoIrish41]

Suggesting that one side is not 100% responsible is not defending them. You're narrow-minded. You like to live in an echo chamber. Have fun with that.

You do the same.

I get that a lot from people who disagree but have no compelling argument to make. Name calling does not fit well with your high-minded stance of neutrality.

 

[dales5050]

I get that a lot from people who disagree but have no compelling argument to make. Name calling does not fit well with your high-minded stance of neutrality.

I would use different words if I was intending to call you names. Calling you narrow-minded is an observation.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would use different words if I was intending to call you names. Calling you narrow-minded is an observation.

I am more polite than to "observe" anything about you. I always find it best to stick to the issue at hand and not make it personal. Then again I do not disagree with people for the sake of disagreement and suggest I am above all the narrow mindedness that everyone else demonstrates.

 

[Redbar]

I would use different words if I was intending to call you names. Calling you narrow-minded is an observation.

You do a lot of name calling and talking down to people. Even when people attempt to have reasonable disagreements with your stances, it usually seems to devolve into this with you. No one on this site is stupid enough to not understand your third attempt at trying to find a point beyond acting like Professor Dale grooving to the sound of his own voice. Of course neither side is 100% correct, of course we are part of the problem and if everyone stopped going to Wal-Mart, Target, eating food grown by Agro-business conglomerates, only rode bicycles (that they machined themselves), started a family farm, stitched their own clothes, and stopped celebrating Christmas, then we might have the standing to point the finger at the parties that are most responsible for actually corrupting the system to their complete advantage.

Before anything will ever change there has to be a clear understanding of what dynamics are controlling the situation. That is the only way for individuals to see what they must do to make it better, and yes, it will always ultimately come down to individuals making choices. With any problem affecting the human condition, human behavior and choices are the answer. So if someone is as smart as you think you are, how does one put their considerable talents to the benefit of this struggle for greater life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? The situation is chaotic, almost out of control, do you have anything to offer to advance anyone's understanding or are you most comfortable safely perched high up on the fence trying to point out the hypocrisy on both sides?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

You go ahead and pretend that you've been right down the middle on this topic as if we can't go back and read your posts. You've spent the half the morning defending corporations, and when Bogs called you out on it is the only time that you even suggested that you "don't support corporations." I'm not even sure what you mean by that, because you offered no evidence of it and almost instantly went back to supporting corporations and blaming consumers. You enjoy your self-righteous little tantrum and have yourself a nice day.

There is a difference between defending big corporations, and mindlessly spouting their babble, with is Madison Avenue at its best, defending itself (by getting other people to regurgitate its line of . . . )

And, similarly :

There is a difference between the bumper sticker. "Mean people suck!"
and the bumper sticker, "Mean people are mean."

Get the difference? No?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I would use different words if I was intending to call you names. Calling you narrow-minded is an observation.

Or a lack of clarity or perspective in your own vision.


Care to borrow my glasses?

You may get a better view!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Heh.

Let's talk about economics from the left.

Want to know how companies can save 23% on wages? Hire only women. After all, there is a wage gap between what men and women earn..right?

Of course, when you dive into the details like hours worked, education, experience and job choices...men and women earn the same. But that does not fit the simplistic narrative and oh so juicy soundbite that women earn less than men.

Speaking in generalities and absolutes is for simpletons.

Your post is fraught with irony! *

* I would love to see where you pull these facts and figures from, (unless it would include a view of something a proctologist would be more equipped to deal with.)

 

[Redbar]

There is a difference between the bumper sticker. "Mean people suck!"
and the bumper sticker, "Mean people are mean."

I've got one "Mean people are insecure."

1. Is a put down, an insult.
2. Is an observation.
3. Is an insight.

I get it!

 

[ND NYC]

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?

I agree with your take on the authors writing style. more than likely he is probabaly appealing to the rolling stone readership. but does he uses too many f-bombs etc., is prone to some hyperbole. although I get angry too learning about how this rip off is perpetrated at the expense of cops, fireman and other public pensioners.
The personal attack on schilling is uncalled for, and unnecessary, and is a bad example to use of corporate welfare when there are soooo many more, with a LOT more zeros he could have/should have used.
its a shame his style prevented you from reading the whole article because there is some very disturbing info in the entire article that people should be aware of.

to summarize hedge funds fees:
they charge 2% to "handle your money" (no matter the return)
then they get 20% of any profits they earn with your money.
then there are the other things they charge you for:
expenses (.5 to 2%)
trading costs (1-2%)
it all adds up after a while and the fees alone (before they get to that 20% off profits they do or don't make) when dealing % of trillions of dollars is HUGE.


re: the fees vs performance of hedge funds in the articlee, this below from the article:

In Rhode Island, over the course of 20 years, Siedle projects that the state will pay $2.1 billion in fees to hedge funds, private-equity funds and venture-capital funds. Why is that number interesting? Because it very nearly matches the savings the state will be taking from workers by freezing their Cost of Living Adjustments – $2.3 billion over 20 years.

"That's some 'reform,'" says Siedle.

"They pretty much took the COLA and gave it to a bunch of billionaires," hisses Day, Providence's retired firefighter union chief.

When asked to respond to criticisms that the savings from COLA freezes could be seen as going directly into the pockets of billionaires, treasurer Raimondo replied that it was "very dangerous to look at fees in a vacuum" and that it's worth paying more for a safer and more diverse portfolio. She compared hedge funds – inherently high-risk investments whose prospectuses typically contain front-page disclaimers saying things like, WARNING: YOU MAY LOSE EVERYTHING – to snow tires. "Sure, you pay a little more," she says. "But you're really happy you have them when the roads are slick."

Raimondo recently criticized the high-fee structure of hedge funds in the Wall Street Journal and told Rolling Stone that "'two and twenty' doesn't make sense anymore," although she hired several funds at precisely those fee levels back before she faced public criticism on the issue. She did add that she was monitoring the funds' performance. "If they underperform, they're out," she says.

And underperforming is likely. Even though hedge funds can and sometimes do post incredible numbers in the short-term – Loeb's Third Point notched a 41 percent gain for Rhode Island in 2010; the following year, it earned -0.54 percent. On Wall Street, people are beginning to clue in to the fact – spikes notwithstanding – that over time, hedge funds basically suck. In 2008, Warren Buffett famously placed a million-dollar bet with the heads of a New York hedge fund called Protégé Partners that the S&P 500 index fund – a neutral bet on the entire stock market, in other words – would outperform a portfolio of five hedge funds hand-picked by the geniuses at Protégé.

Five years later, Buffett's zero-effort, pin-the-tail-on-the-stock-market portfolio is up 8.69 percent total. Protégé's numbers are comical in comparison; all those superminds came up with a 0.13 percent increase over five long years, meaning Buffett is beating the hedgies by nearly nine points without lifting a finger.Union leaders all over the country have started to figure out the perils of hiring a bunch of overpriced Wall Street wizards to manage the public's money. Among other things, investing with hedge funds is infinitely more expensive than investing with simple index funds.

if only ERISA covered PUBLIC pensions (not just PRIVATE) then all local/state governments wouldn't/couldn't have used these pensions as a piggy bank.

Looting these pensions and underfunding them is pox on all parties and politicians.

pretty much same scenario is playing out with social security as well...

 

[pkt77242]

Heh.

Let's talk about economics from the left.

Want to know how companies can save 23% on wages? Hire only women. After all, there is a wage gap between what men and women earn..right?

Of course, when you dive into the details like hours worked, education, experience and job choices...men and women earn the same. But that does not fit the simplistic narrative and oh so juicy soundbite that women earn less than men.

Speaking in generalities and absolutes is for simpletons.

From where are you getting that info? All the research that I have seen shows that when you adjust for those things it does close the gap some but that there is still a significant gap left between male and female wages.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

From where are you getting that info? All the research that I have seen shows that when you adjust for those things it does close the gap some but that there is still a significant gap left between male and female wages.

An echo chamber . . .

 

[dales5050]

You do a lot of name calling and talking down to people. Even when people attempt to have reasonable disagreements with your stances, it usually seems to devolve into this with you. No one on this site is stupid enough to not understand your third attempt at trying to find a point beyond acting like Professor Dale grooving to the sound of his own voice. Of course neither side is 100% correct, of course we are part of the problem and if everyone stopped going to Wal-Mart, Target, eating food grown by Agro-business conglomerates, only rode bicycles (that they machined themselves), started a family farm, stitched their own clothes, and stopped celebrating Christmas, then we might have the standing to point the finger at the parties that are most responsible for actually corrupting the system to their complete advantage.

Before anything will ever change there has to be a clear understanding of what dynamics are controlling the situation. That is the only way for individuals to see what they must do to make it better, and yes, it will always ultimately come down to individuals making choices. With any problem affecting the human condition, human behavior and choices are the answer. So if someone is as smart as you think you are, how does one put their considerable talents to the benefit of this struggle for greater life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? The situation is chaotic, almost out of control, do you have anything to offer to advance anyone's understanding or are you most comfortable safely perched high up on the fence trying to point out the hypocrisy on both sides?

You want to know how I think things get better? Vigorous debate.

This is a message board and words are words. There is nothing wrong with rehashing ones opinion, it's the only way you can truly know what you feel. Just as there is nothing wrong with addressing another over and over again. It's a mental exercise.

With that said, I do hope you're able to locate the irony in your post above. First you seem to mock my desire to expound upon my line of thinking only to then wax poetic on how complex things are.

 

[bkess8]

 

[dales5050]

From where are you getting that info? All the research that I have seen shows that when you adjust for those things it does close the gap some but that there is still a significant gap left between male and female wages.

And what research are you referencing? Here is some good one I saved:

An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women

Outside of that, when you speak of a pay gap actually existing, are you doing a 100% equal comparison?

For example, it's common to use unmarried women rather than never been married in many studies. That little change throws out most studies showing any type of difference for me as a 40 year old divorced mother of 2 is considered unmarried in many studies but she is not the same as a 40 year old who has never been married.

If not, is the research you're reading factoring out things like men are more likely to choose both fields that have higher income potential and are more dangerous? Heck, even when the same career is chosen, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization as is the case with medicine. Then you have the issue of men tend to work longer hours than women, even in an apples-to-apples comparison over their entire career.

I did read some stuff by Goldin and Katz that did show there was a slight gap but it was minimal and temporary and absolutely not signifiant as you suggest. Even still, this study only looked at people working similar hours.



Lastly, and this is a bit out there, but you have the reality that men tend to negotiate for higher earnings from the start. This is the big curve ball for myself. Because how do you classify this?

On one side, you can say that's it's discrimination for a employer to pay more but it's not an issue of equal opportunity. It's more of an issue of society.

Take for example two equals out of college and planning a budget. Men by and large have to account for a higher amount towards dating. In turn, they see a need to make more and ask for it. Move that down the line and look at how alimony and child support are done, men continue to find a greater need to earn more.

This is way beyond basic apples to apples but you get the point.

 

[irishff1014]

This school is under bad leadership. Crying they need money they are going to continue to build an 85 million dollar lazy river. Because that has some much to do with learning. Smh