Post a New Topic
Original post made
by David, Del Prado,
on Jul 8, 2011
We all know that Bush's tax cuts for the rich did nothing to stimulate jobs, but we can continue to deny that fact and push for tax cuts ... for me. But I think Rick Perry is just the guy to rescue us. What we need is jobettes, jobettes, jobettes.
Perry's jobs celebrated as the Texas solution are really "jobettes," offering low pay, no benefits and no upward mobility. In fact, under Rickonomics, Texas has added more minimum wage jobs than all other states combined! After 10 years in office, Gov. Perry presides over a state that has more people in poverty and more without health coverage than any other.
Anything else geniuses?
Jobettes! Gotta love it!!! Proud Texan gets my vote for having America follow Texas' lead. For, face it, most people (gender, deficient bloodlines, natural capacity for stoop labor) don't deserve more than minimum wage.
Rick Perry's mistake is in not adequately paring away minimum wage requirements. Michele Bachmann will do that. Minimum wage is way too much to pay WalMart workers who do nothing but stoop labor all day long. Cut minimum wage in half -- say, down to $2.75 an hour (maybe 3.25 an hour in Bay Area) -- and that'll cure the jobs problem in a big hurry. We have to be competitive with places like China and Indonesia and Mexico.
Say what you want about the jobless recovery. My company has done very well, with profits double what they were last year. We like the high unemployment rate: it gives us a labor market crammed with desperate workers who are willing to work for nothing; and it allows me and my managers to crack the whip even harder upon existing employees, getting them to produce more for the money. I'm also seeing an uptick of so-called sexual harrassment in the workplace - something that our intrusive state has attempted to prohibit in recent years in its never-ending effort to take away our precious liberties. Women are so desperate to hold on to their jobs that they remain silent if men rub up against them even just a little bit or make lewd (but hilariously funny) remarks.
So, what's not to like? I say, the more we become like Mexico, the better off my company will be. Heck, I read yesterday that many Mexicans are staying home instead of crossing the border because of the increased demand to produce more tequilla for American consumers. Adios amigos.
I don't know about you, but I'm paralyzed with fear because of this economic news. My husband and I are trying to pay off the mortgage on our dream home in Ruby Hill, and I'm not able to find employment because of the oppressive minimum wage requirements. And then there's all the tsunamis coming because teachers make too much. Cut minimum wage. I'll work for 2.75 or 3.25 an hour in order to pay off our home mortgage. Cut teacher salaries. Their all unionized and greedy and corrupt. I'm paralyzed with fear in the face of this economy. We need to get govt out of our lives. I'm paralyzed with fear.
I am shocked! to learn that billionaires aren't using their tax cuts to create jobs.
Interestingly, the greatest fall in employment was in government jobs. The TEA Partiers are getting exactly what they wanted. Government jobs are being slashed left and right, and the result is poor jobs reports that'll help them kick out Obama last year.
I was rather appalled to hear Michelle Bachmann acutely admit as much. She's hoping this jobs report helps her chances of getting elected. What kind of person "hopes" for a bad jobs report? Disgusting.
Sorry for the duplicate post and typos.
Here is the Michelle Bachmann interview. Woohoo! Let's crash the economy so I can get elected. Web Link
Hey, did Pluff (Obama's Carl Rove in the Oval Office) tweeet the 5 of you above, to pile on with obfuscation and lies to keep our P-towers from learning the horrors of today's UNemployment figures !! Do you just copy and paste the script, or is it plain 'ol random assinine bull....just keep the people fron clicking on the web link or checking in on further declining jobs....increasing UNemployment.
The facts speak for themselves. Yes, you detect some anger in my voice....now 12 months without paycheck for my professional family member. You may con others, but not me. You were each quite creative with drama to avoid the FACTS...the BAD NUMBERS...national 9.2% actively looking for jobs, plus others who have given up. You offer nothing constructive, hmm, you must be comfortable public union members, so don't care about the suffering going on around you... "What me worry"...no, not you !!
Wow, b slipped in a couple of hits as I was posting. So now there are 6 of you...do you blast your PW list, to 'hit thread with trash" just to overwhelm it.
How big of you..,truth-telling doesn't matter.
b only posts when he/she feels that the government employee gravy train is threatened.
So b, what is your response to Obama's comments the other day during is Twitter event that government employees are over-compensated compared to the private sector that pays the taxes that pays their salaries?
It actually isn't as obscure as you Tea Partiers make it seem. All of the job losses were government jobs. You cut money to government agencies--surprise! the government cuts jobs.
By the way, the reports that came out today had a net GAIN in jobs (even despite the government cutbacks) and a GAIN in manufacturing activity.
This is classic TEA Party math - down is up, and up is down.
Elect us! Honest, we promise not to F up the economy again. We'll cut spending, which will somehow magically create jobs (remember, down is up!). Give us more tax cuts, and we promise this time we'll use the savings to create jobs. Really, this time will be different!
I believe it would be...
"It's the economy..."
"It is the economy...",
Oh yes, let's continue to borrow trillions of dollars so we can continue to fund an oversized and inefficient government (including all the overpaid government workers). An oversized government that has fallen flat on kick-starting the economy.
And of course, you still haven't responded to the Obama point. Just more Tea Party diversions from you.
I found the following information interesting. No wonder we are having such a slow non-recovery. I believe is smart regulation, but I'm not sure this is what we got these past few years with the government spending orgy.
In the wake of the Great Recession and soaring deficits, public opinion is coalescing around the urgent need to grow the economy and cut federal spending and there seems to be one course of action that will contribute to both of these goals: taking a metaphorical "ax" to federal regulatory funding. This step is crucial for two primary reasons:
First, federal spending in general has grown out of proportion to the rest of the economy and to tax receipts. Researchers at the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, using the Federal Reserve Economic Data Online Database, recently compiled some statistics that drive this point home.1 They found that since the official beginning of the recession in December of 2007, wages and salaries have fallen by 2 percent.
Meanwhile, during this same period, the federal government increased its overall spending by 23 percent. Since tax revenues have not grown, a large portion of the spending was financed by borrowed money. As a result, we added $4 trillion to the federal debt a 50 percent increase. Looking ahead, it is projected that the deficit in 2011 will once again be in the $1.3 trillion range, driving the debt even higher.
Shill, it isn't a pretty solution. But the alternative is millions more unemployed. Today's employment numbers are merely a hint of what's to come - millions of government jobs lost, with nowhere for those people to go.
We can spend the billions/trillions to keep them employed, or we can lay them off and hand out more tax cuts to people who don't need them. It is a choice, and BOTH options have consequences.
For my part, I've chosen to support the lesser evil. I think my business and my family's well-being are better off paying a little more in taxes (+/- a few percent is an amount that we'll never notice in our household budget), in order to help support employment until the economy recovers.
Killing millions more middle-class jobs would not be a good thing for any business.
I think we need to do three things. First, let's disregard all those statistics that show that allowing tax cuts to the rich to expire will cut the deficit by over 80%. Second, let's continue to go after women getting free mammograms and pap smears and teachers getting salaries almost as high as border patrol agents. Third, let's shut down the federal govt. Just to show that we can. Let the hundreds of thousands of govt workers go without a paycheck for a while. That'll make them feel the pain that I experience as a near-billionaire who is forced to pay 30 percent of my income to the federal govt.
Today's "crisis" was over 39,000 government jobs lost. They also reported that there are currently 14.1 million people unemployed.
According to the census bureau, there are slightly less than 18 million people employed in federal, state and local government jobs.
What happens if 10-20% of government spending is cut, as proposed by these TEA Party reps? What does the economy do with 3 million freshly unemployed people, added to the 14.1 million already there?
It isn't just about direct government employment. There are massive numbers of businesses (small and large) that receive a huge portion of their revenue from government agencies, directly and indirectly. Those businesses employ far more people than the government itself.
Businesses hire people because they foresee improved revenue opportunities, not because they receive tax cuts. No business is going to hire new workers in the face of revenue decreases, simply because their tax rate has gone down. Not in the real world.
Apparently I'm slow. Please explain to me how pulling out the government spending rug doesn't cause this fragile economy to implode?
"Interesting" - we have some recent history to demonstrate the stimulative effects of reducing federal regulation.
The Bush administration reduced all sorts of regulation. As a result banks loaned money like they never had before. Anyone could have a loan, and they bought McMansions, swimming pools, and big screen televisions.
It was fantastic stimulus. Until it wasn't anymore. And the taxpayers got stuck with the bill anyways.
b - it is evident from your comments that you are not a true business owner - one the relies on the open market for its revenue. I suspect you are either a government employee, union rep, or someone who derives the bulk of its revenue from the government.
There is different types of spending. Say I have a $100 to spend. Should I a) spend it to repave my driveway that doesn't need to be repaved so that someone has a job, b) spend it on highly paid administrators (government employees) just to maintain their income level, or c) spend it on a new person with a critical skillset or new piece of equipment either which will drive new revenue?
I know your answer which is all three are OK choices but really the correct answer is C. And this is the issue with all the trillions of dollars in wasted spending these past few years. None of it has made us fundamentally more competitive. Now all we are left with are the same market prospects we had before and an even larger mountain of debt to pay off.
Mark my word, these last few years of deficit spending will go down in history as one of our worst "investments" and we will have nothing to show for it. Even now, Obama is clamoring for infrustructure spending. Wasn't this what we were supposed to do with the initial $800B. This is one of the many reasons why he is likely to lose the next election. He is an ideological savior for the left and doesn't have a clue as to how the economy runs or how a business runs.
And either do you as evident from your comments.
The tax rates for corporations and for the wealthiest Americans are the lowest they've been since the end of World War II. Fact is, big corporations are sitting on piles of cash (literally trillions of dollars), but they're not hiring.
Why not? The answer is simple: it's not lack of cash but lack of customers. The President and the Congress need to focus on creating jobs, and that won't be done through tax cuts.
Former President Clinton has had some helpful suggestions for President Obama, which Obama has blithely ignored.
Newsweek recently published an article in which Mr. Clinton outlined 14 ways to put America back to work. Please note that one of Mr. Clinton's suggestions is to cut the corporate tax rate BUT to eliminate many exemptions that result in corporations spending hundreds of millions on clever accountants who figure out ways for these corporations to not pay anything at all.
Mr. Clinton is not a far-left liberal; rather, he has proven he is a political centrist who actually cares whether or not people have jobs.
I wish Mr. Clinton was President right now instead of Mr. Obama, that's for sure.
"3. JOBS GALORE IN ENERGY
When I was president, the economy benefited because information technology penetrated every aspect of American life. More than one quarter of our job growth and one third of our income growth came from that. Now the obvious candidate for that role today is changing the way we produce and use energy. The U.S. didn't ratify the Kyoto accords, of course, because Al Gore and I left office, and the next government wasn't for it. They were all wrong. Before the financial meltdown, the four countries that will meet their Kyoto greenhouse-gas emission targets were outperforming America with lower unemployment, more new business formation, and less income inequality."
"A real business owner"
You have to admit that TARP was a very good investment.
It was endorsed by the Wall Street Journal and gets paid back with interest.
This kind of spending is OK in my book. It is not like that welfare "stimulus" Obama program that just went to unions and "community organizers".
Here is the conservative Wall Street Journal's editorial in favor of TARP.
Mark - IMHO TARP was not good for two reasons:
1) It preserved those banks who made stupid decisions. Many of them should have gone bankrupt, but instead the Fed (ultimately we) took on that bad debt.
2) The taxpayer didn't come close to getting a risk adjusted return. Yes we may get the total amount paid back (maybe not GM/Chrysler) but our return should have been much higher. Look what Buffett got for essentially the same investment - much, much higher returns.
Your insults and fantasies aside, I am a real business owner. I've never worked for the government, nor has more than a small fraction of my revenue ever come directly from government agencies of any kind.
My opinions derive from common sense. What would be the economic impact of laying off or severly reducing the incomes of middle class people. That would be devestating to our economy.
On the other hand, what would be impact on high wage earners if they had to pay 39% instead of 35% on a portion of their income? Zip. Nada.
How do I know that? Because that's what they paid during some of our best economic years. It did not hold anyone back from wildly hiring (ie dot com years). Why? Because real business owners hire based on revenue opportunities, not tax rates.
And what would I do if I had $100 to spend? I'd save it. I have all the things I want in my life. Incremental income and moderate cash fluctuations have no impact on my life. The Bush tax cuts put a little more cash in my pocket, and I did absolutely nothing stimulative with it.
And that's my point. A 10% pay cut for a middle class park maintenance employee could mean survival (or at least less money to spend at local businesses), but a tax cut or raise of a few percentage points will not change my behavior or lifestyle at all
"Your insults and fantasies aside, I am a real business owner. I've never worked for the government, nor has more than a small fraction of my revenue ever come directly from government agencies of any kind."
- you neglected to mention if your revenue comes from unions.
"My opinions derive from common sense. What would be the economic impact of laying off or severly reducing the incomes of middle class people. That would be devestating to our economy."
- what is the impact of raising taxes on the private sector middle class, to support the public sector middle class which, BTW, is already paid more than the private sector? It's a further erosion of real middle class wages.
"On the other hand, what would be impact on high wage earners if they had to pay 39% instead of 35% on a portion of their income? Zip. Nada."
- see my comment below.
"How do I know that? Because that's what they paid during some of our best economic years. It did not hold anyone back from wildly hiring (ie dot com years). Why? Because real business owners hire based on revenue opportunities, not tax rates.
Can we at least agree that tax rates are driving companies out of California?
"And that's my point. A 10% pay cut for a middle class park maintenance employee could mean survival (or at least less money to spend at local businesses), but a tax cut or raise of a few percentage points will not change my behavior or lifestyle at all"
- How many middle class employees get guaranteed hours, almost iron clad job security, 14 paid holidays, 96 hours of sick leave (that they can cash-out), four weeks of vacation, a life insurance policy and retirement package that is transfered to a spouse upon death, more pay for education even if the job doesn't require it, lifetime health care, and retroactive pension benefits that will pay them close to 100% of salary if they work what most of us would consider a career. How many private sectors employees do you that get a promotion with extra money, plus annual 5% raises for four years, plus yearly COLA raises that have averaged over 4% for the past decade. And how many private sector employees get to retire at age 55 with an inflation adjusted pension plus health care paid for. All that plus a salary of about 85K.
I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous you sound. When you add it all up, your middle class park mnaintenance worker is probably making 130K +
Nope, never made a dime from a union in any way, shape or form. Quite frankly, unused to hate unions until everyone started attacking them. You people have made me quite sympathetic to their members.
I'd be miserable if I had to live on a teacher's salary. Nevermind dealing with bratty kids and obnoxious TEA Party activists all the time.
How does a middle class worker get an 85k job? Go work in Silicon Valley. Salaries and benefits are ridiculously better in the tech industry than in government and union jobs. Haven't gotten your share? Maybe you should look in the mirror, rather than blaming other people for your woes.
I make 250 grand a year, but I pay the same in taxes as the 250 grand earner in Alabam. That's not fair. I am entitled to better treatment than this from my government that I pay taxes to. Instead, I'm victimized by high tax rates left and right. How can I save up enough to upgrade from 4 bedroom to 7 bedroom house when I'm attacked by the Dem-dominated govt for being successful? My family of four is really hurting from Obama's socialist actions. He's raised my taxes how much since entering office? This cannot go on. The title wave is coming when those of us who are entitled stop being victimized will receive the entitlements we're entitled to. Let's begin by cutting teacher salaries.
A recent Economist article summarized the to-date returns for TARP. If you include the Freddie/Fannie portions, the taxpayer will lose money on TARP.
We lost money on Chrysler and depending on whether/not stock prices increase, we will also lose money on GM and AIG.
It doesn't seem like that good of a deal. Plus it introduced moral hazard. Now everyone expects to be bailed out from their stupid decisions.
This is just getting surreal (see below). Just stand in line and you will get your bail out too. The only problem is who will bail out the US when it runs out of money to borrow? And yes we will get to that point. It is going to be interesting times when foreign powers start to dictate what we can/can't do (just like what is happening with Greece today) AND we will have to do what they say because they will be our debt masters.
US Taxpayers Just Paid $780 Million To Fund The Latest Greece Bailout Tranche
Oh really b? Right. Tell me another one. I need another laugh today.
Bush's billions in bail-outs had no strings attached. Paulson just thought he could dole out the money to banks that would fill out a two-page application form. No problem. Can't pay the money back? No problem. It's the govt that is expected to be accountable, not our heroic bankers. (And all that money, by the way, has been lost, as the banks pushed the money up to holding companies who used it on foreign investments, lear jets, and ceo bonuses.
Obama's TARP money, unlike Bush's handouts, had strings attached. The car companies have already paid back most of that money.
But listen, it's more fun to lie and bellyache about Obama's policies. And of course I would have been the loudest whiner about the millions of jobs that would have been lost _without_ TARP. But that's my nature as a rich guy who couldn't care less about others and their wretched, pathetic efforts to find employment. (Ever hear of inheritance anyone?) My goal is to lie and complain as a means of getting this guy Obama out of office. Then we can go back to the good old pre-Obama days when banks operated without regulation. What a plan, heh?
So Leland - I guess you are calling the Economist a fraud? Interesting.
Both Bush and Obama are jokes and we continue to pay the price for their incompetence and ignorance.
One more thing Leland. Why don't you actually read the article? If you did, you'd realize how foolish your statements are above. It is actually the banks who have paid back their bailout funds. The issue is with the rest of the recipients.
Now I'm not a fan of Wall Street or big banks. I'm just reacting to the foolishness and distortions of your comments. LOL
Leland - Since you are such a big fan of Obama's job creation track record these past two years, I'm sure you realize that nearly 50% of those 2M jobs are totally made up via the birth/death model - a made-up plug of a number.
I'm sure you knew this as you play yourself off as so wise and educated.
Dear Mr./Ms. TARP,
I don't know what you're talking about, and I doubt anyone else does either. It may be comfortable for you to pull 'authoritative' sources out of the air and cite them as evidence for your untruthful statements and bellyaching, but most of us defend our claims with substantive evidence or, like me, hire 'intellectuals', lawyers, propagandists and public relations personnel to make the claims for me. (See the Economist).
As for the Economist, I generally like it. It is written from a strong capitalist viewpoint, does not allow alternative viewpoints from the left, and doesn't disrupt my (deservedly) privileged position in the political-economic order of things. What's not to like?
It must be nice to live on the Leland island of distortion and fairy tales where you can write your own rules and be your own judge of what is fact or fiction.
I so love fiction, as well as many forms of rhetoric! They are playful forms of discourse, with their transgressions against 'truth' usually being transparent (obvious) to most, though there's always the danger that the dolts in our midst won't be able to distinguish between the playful use of language from their own penchant for lying. I think we all realize to which category TARP belongs. Sorry to have confused you so, TARP.
It comes from my leisured lifestyle, I guess. Because I let my Daddy's money that I inherited (and my loyal, kiss-upping staff) do the work for me, I've got time to read and become better educated. This, I know, places an unreasonable burden upon so many suckers who have to go out and work for a living. And then there are the suckers who either don't work or work part-time and spend the rest of their days frothing in contempt for anyone who isn't feeling the same level of pain and self-loathing that they are.
I'm a dolt - humorous.
Actually I'm a person who grew up dirt poor but then took the opportunities before me to get an Ivy League education and became a self-made Millionare.
I represent what once made America great - ingenuity, hard-work and sacrifice.
You represent what is inflicting our country and dragging it down - a victim and entitlement mentality.
Of course you will mock me and discount what I write here, but if you ever had the guts to disclose who you really were, I'd be more than happy to disclose who I can so you could verify what I write. But of course you won't as I think you'd prefer to continue your charade.
TARP: You are so right in regard to what once made America great. Sadly, now a days, people like you are fictitious. In the minds of most, people like you do not exist and political view points/opinions are founded on the perception of what was given to you vs what you earned through your life choicesand experiences. My husband and I worked our way through school without a single dime from government or help from our folks (believe it or not, we were both from Appalachia and poor as dirt too...sad I have to "qualify" w/ the "believe it not" ) We both have post grad degrees in the sciences. Our education was a state school back east, not ivy league (and we don't feel denied in the least) and we are not millionaires (but good for you that you are!)... We have a hell of a work ethic, self respect and the satisfaction that accomplishments feel good even 35 years later. You can believe we passed on those 3 life skills to our kids.
What is it about these self-proclaimed Ivy Leaguers that compels them to lie about their educational backgrounds and personal finances?
At least I'm honest. I grew up with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth. My Daddy owned a large company that sent pre-fab homes up to Alaska. Over the course of several years he purchased a plumbing company, an electrical company, a lumber mill and two lumber companies, three transportation companies (air, land, sea), and several politicians who pushed for a cost-plus deal between the Alaskans and my Daddy. Toward the end of my Daddy's life, virtually every item in a pre-fabbed home and every means of transporting them to Alaska was owned by my Daddy. Utilizing the principle of vertical integration, he ended up monopolizing the entire pre-fab industry in the Pacific Northwest. Not bad, eh?
I loved my Daddy a whole bunch. I recall him sitting at the table talking about how he regarded his workers. "They're nothing more than **ses and elbows to me," he'd always say. My Daddy was tough, and I saw him send Pinkertons to bust up the unions by busting heads. He tried to bust up the longshoremen and teamsters, but they fought back, and that's when my Daddy decided to buy up his own transportation companies.
Unlike some cowards, I use my name on these posts. My name is Leland, and just about everybody around here knows me. Just ask, you'll see. I've got nothing to hide, and that's why I use my name. Some people come on these sites and spout untruths about their backgrounds (mythical) and accomplishments (wishful). Self-deceived, they live vicariously the life of a wealthy person in a pathetic attempt to imagine themselves to have the riches people like me have. They care about no one but themselves, which is part of the reason why they are left old and embittered and posting on these sites with such desperation. They are to be pitied, along with the other working-class suckers out there who think they can become as rich as me. They don't read, they know nothing of music or art, their only value is that of money. They are immersed in cultural-intellectual impoverishment. Too bad for them. The truly rich, like me, don't have to worry about money; we worry about who will be accompanying the SF symphony when they perform a Beethovan or Brahms violin concerto. I hire people to do the worrying and buying off of politicians and media folks for me. I have no need to brag to people with claims about the extent of my wealth; only a desperate, intellectually-culturally impoverished person would do such a thing. So fixated on wealth, they become cardboard cut-out caricatures of what it means to be human. So sad.
Lilly - Yes, it is unfortunate that somewhere along the way stories like ours have been overlooked. It is inspirational to hear where you came from and what you did with your life. Even more, you have passed this gift of attitude/work effort down to your kids like I have.
I do hope we as a country can re-discover what made us great. It is only ourselves we can rely on to dig us out of our current economic mess.
I agree with steve. Our history books are littered with stories about William Dubose, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, but nowhere do we hear about the heroic contributions to our society of Donald Trump or Mitt Romney. That's what genuine heroism is. Kicking down, kissing up, and making lots and lots of money, and then criticizing the govt for taking out money away from us. I mean, if everyone had followed MLK's urgings, we'd have had racial justice in our land by now. If everyone became a millionaire then we'd have a country of millionaires. It's achievable. Hard work = being a millionaire. If you don't make it, you simply haven't kicked down hard enough or kissed up convincingly enough. No brainer folks. Let's put Trump and Romney in the history books.
Making millions on the backs of sucker workers. What's not to like?
I can only hope that there are more people out there like Lilly and me as opposed to the Leland, Blossoms and Seans of the world. But I'm not sure - and this is why the US will likely continue its slow erosion of standard of living for most.
Now I'll agree that there are certain elements like taxation (especially the capital gains treatment of private equity and hedge fund income) that favor the rich and need to be addressed. But this doesn't explain all. Just one example - why is it that some many people decided to use their homes as ATMs and buy discretionary things they truly couldn't afford (boats, new cars, fancy vacations ...) while people like me saved and made money off appreciating investments? I wish more people had made responsible decisions back then but they didn't.
It is humorous that the Lelands of the world can't comprehend case studies like mine. This why he/she will continue to pretend and complain about the wealth I accumulate, while his/her standard of living stagnates and they cry even louder about the unfairness and for government hand-outs to compensate.
TARP and me have more in common than he let's on. Just like him, I'm honest about my education background and financial worth. Just like him, I add money to the fortune I inherited (substantially more than slacker TARP) by putting my money to work with investments. Money makes money. I invest, corporations use my investment to hire those best suited for stoop labor, giving them jobettes and the like, and then award the bulk of earnings to the top dogs. And I've done all this without losing myself in some people's obsessive pursuit of the almighty dollar. As some of you may not know, there may not be much money in poetry, but there's very little poetry in money. You have to have the leisure to have both. I rather pity the money-grubbing obsessives who can think only about their bank accounts. It's kind of a sad statement on the mental health of the nation.
Before I was lying about my background, and now I'm telling the truth? LOL - I guess it whatever fits the story line you are trying to spin. But there is one key difference between your fairy tale on my true life, I inherited nothing and earned everything through hard work and sacrifice.
SF Symphony tickets don't cost that much and you don't have to be wealthy to attend. They are much cheaper than Raiders tickets.
TARP-I admit I know nothing of the world or economics, since I just rode my daddy's coattails. Please ignore all my previous rambling posts pretending to be a loathsome parasite.
... and additionally, I don't need to know much about anything. I let my hired help do my thinking for me and my Daddy's big bucks do the talking. It's as simple as that!
I agree with Leland. Sometimes I wonder if it was worth it. I kissed up and kicked down all my life and now I'm a shell of a human being and I'm left sweeping floors four hours a day. Sometimes I even find myself using Leland's name on these posts because I identify with him so. PS I really hate unions. And I've gradyouated from Yale, honest.
Leland - I have found that I can always learn something from everyone including those who have the opposite perspective than me on issues. If you really do have the background you profess and are from the Pleasanton area, I would welcome the live discussion. I am curious why I have the perspectives I do given my background and financial position while others (maybe you) have a very different perspective.
So sorry TARP, some silly wabbit other than myself has begun to appropriate my good name and neighborhood and use it to confuse readers. What's a rich guy like me supposed to do? So, what exactly have you learned from people taking the opposite side from you, TARP? I'm sure other readers would love to hear about it.
I haven't learned much from the opposite side at all. I don't have to. For me, it's not about learning except that which involves the cultivation of my inner self. I can afford to be a know-nothing about a lot of things because I have people I pay to protect me and my holdings. I expect no accountability from myself, only from my accountants and the dastardly govt agents who keep picking away at my 600+ million in (declared) assets. Like so many of those like me, I simply BELIEVE in my interests. Facts and knowledge only get in the way.
PS Please do continue criticizing Obama and his socialist practices. Every little criticism, however deceptive or fraught with lies it is -- e.g., your reference to 100 trillion -- helps our side, doesn't it? Good job and a nice pat on the head for you!
The ""lealands" of the world seem to live by their feelings (how they want to see to world they live in regardless of the chocies made) vs their principals, (the important "stuff" that drives the choices we make to create the outcomes/legacy you desire.
I think the "lelands" forget they have a chocie.
The "Leland" way is the easy way. Takes little accountability , no planning and lets one create any excuse for where one find yourself. It even gives you permission to feel miserable. This approach does little to nurture self-esteem so one looks toward others to do this for them. It also feeds the envy which probably creates the fairy tales about good vs evil. Unfortunately, this is yet one more reason to attack others who choose the "non Leeland" approach.
But like bad breath, it does not smell too good to yourself or those around you.
Miserable people sow the wrong things....and so they reap misery (or bad breath). And like bad breath, it really should be kept to yourself.
This thread has run its course and will be closed.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Demographics present challenges for Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 13 comments | 1,232 views
Why we need the Water Bond
By Roz Rogoff | 13 comments | 803 views
November Ballot Prop 2 – Devils or Angels in the Details?
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 801 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
San Ramon Express
© 2014 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.