Well all Tim did was take the meeting. I think he was always like 80/20 on staying. But take the meeting and give it some thought. How stupid can Rivers be to say no to Duncan about anything? Everything in any meeting is always a yes.. You can say no later LOL..That's the rumor. Careful about mentioning that upstairs so the *Duncan only wanted to play for Pop* slurpers can continue to enjoy their fantacy.
Well all Tim did was take the meeting. I think he was always like 80/20 on staying. But take the meeting and give it some thought. How stupid can Rivers be to say no to Duncan about anything? Everything in any meeting is always a yes.. You can say no later LOL..That's the rumor. Careful about mentioning that upstairs so the *Duncan only wanted to play for Pop* slurpers can continue to enjoy their fantacy.
Again, who gives a about millionaires? I would rather have less people starving, than having more people with more money than they can spend on their lifetimes.Canada is 20th in density of millionaires, USA is 7th.
You were doing better before you gave it away.
That's the dumbest analogy of all-time, tbh. It only works to expose the re ness of the people that use it, tbh.
Let's say you have a country of 10 people. You also have 10 bucks on that country. You would rather have 2 guys with 5 bucks each while the rest starve to death, or you would rather have the 10 folks with a dollar each?
(Cue in the dumb "with a dollar each they would starve too")
Funny you mention it. That number ballooned as soon as a free market president took over.Great philosophy you have there. It should elevate your country beyond the 36% poverty level it has.
Actually, it's more like with 100 people, 1 of them owns $4 of that $10, 9 people owns $2.8, 40 of them own $2.5, and the other 50 of those own 70 cents.That's the dumbest analogy of all-time, tbh. It only works to expose the re ness of the people that use it, tbh.
Let's say you have a country of 10 people. You also have 10 bucks on that country. You would rather have 2 guys with 5 bucks each while the rest starve to death, or you would rather have the 10 folks with a dollar each?
(Cue in the dumb "with a dollar each they would starve too")
Funny you mention it. That number ballooned as soon as a free market president took over.
Some people love this set up, others hate it, it really depends which side of the spectrum you believe in. Some people are happy being that 40 to share the $2.5, not a lot are happy being the 50 who owns the 70 cents.
The biggest fallacy is that meritocracy exist in such an economy, when the reality is that family background, and in almost all instances, luck factors a big deal in whether someone belongs to the 1%, the 10%, the middle class, and the poor.
Some capitalistic countries in the world aren't that rich. Jamaica I believe is capitalist. Canada, and the Scandanavian countries are most definitely socialist, so is Switzerland. The funny thing is, the tax rates in Canada is much exaggerated, the people in the States don't really pay much less in taxes. Canada's tax revenue vs. GDP is 31.7%, US is 27.5%. Countries like Kazakhstan, Samoa, Turkey, Suriname actually have lower tax rates than the States.
The main difference is where the taxes go to, is it used to provide incentives for the rich to stay, or is it used to give a decent standard of living to the poor such that the poor can increase spending, and as such feed into economic growth. There is no magic bullet.
HK, Singapore, and the US are some of the most capitalistic societies, and they don't necessarily are a haven for all people. it's great if you are rich, not so great if you are poor and struggle to pay for the basics of life, let alone self improve.
No one in the US is starving. This isn't the 3rd world, dip .
Sure thing son
DMC is "correct" in the sense that no one has to starve in the US as there are a wealth of government programs and charities that address the issue. Do some people get left behind? Sure. Furthermore, citing "poverty rate" statistics to determine how poor someone or the country is can be misleading, since many lower and even middle class people will underreport their earnings in order to qualify for some form of welfare. I also wouldn't call the average "poor" person in the US poor by world standards. They will have adequate housing with modern amenities, transportation, technology (cell phone, television, etc).Sure thing son
This of course doesn't excuse the hoarding of the wealth by the "1 percent" and how grossly underpaid and undervalued rank-and-file workers are, but all those Central Americans are coming here for a reason, as getting paid 8.00 an hour under the table to pick peaches and live with 6 other people in a studio apartment is preferable to the real, life threatening poverty they had to endure in their home countries.
It's a myth that the US is hyper-capitalist. I've said earlier we're as socialized as any other first world country, just that those tax dollars go towards our "blessed" military instead of social programs.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/54179...e-in-the-world.
Lord Trump cut the following by 2 percent, however.
Yeah. But I’d say socialism is around the use on people in need. Military really isn’t one I’d count. It’s a way for taxing people to make weapons manufacturers richer.It's a myth that the US is hyper-capitalist. I've said earlier we're as socialized as any other first world country, just that those tax dollars go towards our "blessed" military instead of social programs.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/54179...e-in-the-world.
Lord Trump cut the following by 2 percent, however.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote