PDA

View Full Version : Jobs are not the answer?



Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 06:01 AM
How the left would "solve" the unemployment problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allan-sheahen/jobs-are-not-the-answer_b_3727048.html

As usual, expand the free lunch and soak the rich. He starts out making a good case about structural unemployment but then goes on to the usual liberal whine about the rich not paying taxes, citing examples from before the Obama tax increases, and basically gives no hard information as to how the numbers would actually work out.

Since he proposes to eliminate a bunch of government programs to pay for this, is he comfortable with putting a bunch of those overpaid, pampered government workers out to pasture on his "BIG?"

I seriously doubt it.

Still, it is a novel idea. Should be great for immigration, both legal and illegal which are already excessive. Think of it, you're sitting south of the border and here's a place where all you have to do is get legal and you get your BIG.

:grin:

Cigar
08-12-2013, 06:52 AM
What Department and what Names of "these" pampered government workers?

Would that be the ones you're paying NOW, on vacation until September?

Are those Kentucky, Virginia, Texas or Florida pampered government workers?

Of course not, we know who they are ... they're "those" pampered government workers.

You won't here "them" called out by State, Department or by Name ... but we all know who "these" pampered government workers are. :wink:

Whenever you see "these", "those" and "them" used ... we all know "what" and "who" is being talked about.

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 06:54 AM
Why don't you try reading the piece and addressing it? Specifically, the idea of a "BIG."

Too difficult for you?

Cigar
08-12-2013, 06:59 AM
Same Whine, different Vintage, same old stale Cheese. :rollseyes:

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 07:01 AM
Yep, you got the point. The piece has the same old "soak the rich" liberal whine to pay for the usual leftist free lunch.

Very perceptive of you.

Chris
08-12-2013, 08:04 AM
"One answer is to establish a basic income guarantee (BIG), enough at least to get by on -- just above the poverty level -- for everyone."

There you go, cigar, the answer is BIG government running the economy into the ground. It's mighty big of him to offer BIG as a solution, after all, it's not likely going to be his but other people's money to pay people for doing nothing.

TANSTAAFL

Cigar
08-12-2013, 08:17 AM
Yep, you got the point. The piece has the same old "soak the rich" liberal whine to pay for the usual leftist free lunch.

Very perceptive of you.

Sounds like a wining campaign slogan ... :laugh: ... I say go with it.

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 08:31 AM
3517

Cigar
08-12-2013, 08:53 AM
3517

http://chrisquarshie91.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/crotch4.jpg?w=645

Chris
08-12-2013, 09:02 AM
Beef, as in "where's the beef", is a complaint, cigar, not your crotch.

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 09:04 AM
Chris, is Cigar playing with himself again?

Where are the rest of the libs? I can't believe they aren't here wanting their BIGs.

:grin:

Chloe
08-12-2013, 09:19 AM
I think it's actually a good idea and even though it makes people uncomfortable to think about maybe it's more of an honest way to fix it instead of trying to reach a magical unemployment number. It wouldn't be hard to provide money like that, especially if money is reduced in other areas and actually give to people. I do agree with the article that jobs are focused on too much and it's unrealistic that you can ever truly have full employment.

Agravan
08-12-2013, 09:20 AM
Those who don't have to work shouldn't be required to do so. Instead, they can create, do volunteer service, or work at low-paying jobs which are still socially needed, such as teaching or the arts.


This will be a big hit with the liberal, dope head, hippie crowd.

Chloe
08-12-2013, 09:21 AM
I also think there could be more jobs available to people if the country put up effort to rebuild and upgrade our infrastructure and also with green related jobs.

Agravan
08-12-2013, 09:23 AM
I think it's actually a good idea and even though it makes people uncomfortable to think about maybe it's more of an honest way to fix it instead of trying to reach a magical unemployment number. It wouldn't be hard to provide money like that, especially if money is reduced in other areas and actually give to people. I do agree with the article that jobs are focused on too much and it's unrealistic that you can ever truly have full employment.
It wasn't that unrealistic 8 years ago when we had 4.5% Unemployment and liberals were bitching about how dire the unemployment rate was. Of course now, and unemployment rate of 7.3% is seen as terrific by the same liberals.

Agravan
08-12-2013, 09:24 AM
I also think there could be more jobs available to people if the country put up effort to rebuild and upgrade our infrastructure and also with green related jobs.

Again where does the tax money come from to pay for those jobs?

Chloe
08-12-2013, 09:27 AM
It wasn't that unrealistic 8 years ago when we had 4.5% Unemployment and liberals were bitching about how dire the unemployment rate was. Of course now, and unemployment rate of 7.3% is seen as terrific by the same liberals.

Both sides bitch about it because its a political issue and helps people get elected. If you get past the political bitching you see that the unemployment number is important as sort of a snapshot of the country, but there will always be a percentage of the country that won't have jobs, are inbetween jobs, or something like that.

bladimz
08-12-2013, 09:28 AM
I don't know... i think that Shehean really has little to say about the million/billionaires and focuses mainly on the elimination of a number of social programs now in place (and ones that 'wingers have bitched about for years) to pay for the BIG concept.

He didn't really say this, but i think that a fair number of people who are granted a basic income would be motivated to supplement by gladly accepting a low-paying job, knowing that it could lead to a better quality of life. Imagine the number of poverty stricken people, depressed and seeing no way out of the hole, suddenly given a lift up and out. This plus the idea of universal healthcare of some sort and quality education could very well transform this nightmarish society we currently have. If the wealthy corporations and individuals would like to contribute financially to this program (tax free), great. But eliminating poverty in this country is really the focus.

Cigar
08-12-2013, 09:28 AM
.... and in resent News:

Rep. Darrell Issa’s Postal Reform Act would implement these drastic changes to the postal service while slashing over 100,000 mail carrier jobs, directly attacking postal employees’ collective-bargaining rights, and creating a new and entirely unnecessary oversight committee. The postal service doesn’t need new bureaucracy. It doesn’t even need to cut jobs or services. What it needs is an end to the disastrous pre-funding mandate, which requires the postal service to guarantee retiree health care and pension benefits for 75 years—a Bush-era mandate that no other government agency or private company is forced to do.


Oh ... and BTW ... what exactly would Darrell Issa and The GOP say to the addition 100,000 employees added to the Unemployment Numbers ... it's President Obama's fault?

http://oversight.house.gov/release/issa-introduces-postal-reform-act-2/

Chloe
08-12-2013, 09:29 AM
Again where does the tax money come from to pay for those jobs?

The money exists already. All that's needed is to have the money redirected to the people and not pork projects, favors, nuclear missiles, egypts military, and other ways we throw around money that would be better off going to us.

Cigar
08-12-2013, 09:31 AM
I also think there could be more jobs available to people if the country put up effort to rebuild and upgrade our infrastructure and also with green related jobs.

They just don't get it ... it's "our" Infrastructure ... who else is suppose to Maintain it? :rollseyes:

Don't expect the Mythical Job Creators to have a epiphany.

Agravan
08-12-2013, 09:32 AM
The money exists already. All that's needed is to have the money redirected to the people and not pork projects, favors, nuclear missiles, egypts military, and other ways we throw around money that would be better off going to us.
Ok, I agree that the money should not go to those things, but it should first be used to reduce or debt instead of paying people not to work.

Cigar
08-12-2013, 09:36 AM
Ok, I agree that the money should not go to those things, but it should first be used to reduce or debt instead of paying people not to work.

The Debt has already been reduced ... and anyone working on OUR Infrastructure, won't be working for FREE and sitting at home. :rollseyes:

If your House is leaking and a rain storm is coming ... are you going to put off maintenance because you have a balance on your credit card?

Chloe
08-12-2013, 09:37 AM
Ok, I agree that the money should not go to those things, but it should first be used to reduce or debt instead of paying people not to work.

Yes but we can do two things at once. We can pay off debts while also improving life in my opinion.

Chris
08-12-2013, 09:39 AM
I think it's actually a good idea and even though it makes people uncomfortable to think about maybe it's more of an honest way to fix it instead of trying to reach a magical unemployment number. It wouldn't be hard to provide money like that, especially if money is reduced in other areas and actually give to people. I do agree with the article that jobs are focused on too much and it's unrealistic that you can ever truly have full employment.

So I take it you are willing to donate all the money you would prefer to spend on fashion and style, and give it away to others.

Chris
08-12-2013, 09:42 AM
The Debt has already been reduced ... and anyone working on OUR Infrastructure, won't be working for FREE and sitting at home. :rollseyes:

If your House is leaking and a rain storm is coming ... are you going to put off maintenance because you have a balance on your credit card?



And how has it been reduced but by printing more money and cheapening the value of it thereby? I used to have a friend who always advised don't pay off a loan but what you have to in minimum payments because then inflation will pay off a big chunk--of course he forgot about interest.

Chloe
08-12-2013, 09:44 AM
So I take it you are willing to donate all the money you would prefer to spend on fashion and style, and give it away to others.

I would donate money if helps someone but it's not like I spend someone's income on my clothes or anything like that. What this article is saying is that people would have a base amount income to live realistically on and then everything after that is on you.

Cigar
08-12-2013, 09:58 AM
And how has it been reduced but by printing more money and cheapening the value of it thereby? I used to have a friend who always advised don't pay off a loan but what you have to in minimum payments because then inflation will pay off a big chunk--of course he forgot about interest.

So let just do nothing about the failing infrastructure ... and make excuses when disasters we already know are coming ... eventually happen ...

By hey ... you prevented an Obama Victory ... so that's the important point. :rollseyes:

brilliant ................... :rollseyes:

Chris
08-12-2013, 10:05 AM
I would donate money if helps someone but it's not like I spend someone's income on my clothes or anything like that. What this article is saying is that people would have a base amount income to live realistically on and then everything after that is on you.

Where do you think that BIG is going to come from if not you and me and others who earn an income?

Chris
08-12-2013, 10:06 AM
So let just do nothing about the failing infrastructure ... and make excuses when disasters we already know are coming ... eventually happen ...

By hey ... you prevented an Obama Victory ... so that's the important point. :rollseyes:

brilliant ................... :rollseyes:



No, I suggest we do one big thing, get corrupt crony capitalistic government out of it.

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 10:17 AM
I think it's actually a good idea and even though it makes people uncomfortable to think about maybe it's more of an honest way to fix it instead of trying to reach a magical unemployment number. It wouldn't be hard to provide money like that, especially if money is reduced in other areas and actually give to people. I do agree with the article that jobs are focused on too much and it's unrealistic that you can ever truly have full employment.

Does it bother you that he really doesn't offer any specifics as to cost and how it would be paid for other than the usual tired "soak the rich" nostrum?

Do you understand that all of those government agency welfare parasites would be redundant if this was done? Do you think liberals would really agree to the big rifs (reduction in forces) that this would make possible?

As I said, he makes a good point about the structural jobs problem. But if a solution like this is going to be considered seriously, you have to be able to show how it could actually occur and how you protect it from abuse and being collected by people who have never put anything into the system.

As for community service, the problem with that is that is requires so much bureaucracy to oversee, it defeats the purpose.

Chloe, the Democrats simply use infrastructure as an excuse to waste a lot of money on boondoggles and overpay union labor via Davis Bacon. Do a little study on that latter topic and you will find that eliminating Davis Bacon alone would allow for the purchase of 15-20 percent more infrastructure for the same money.

Infrastructure spending by government has just become another huge pork barrel.

Sorry Blad, but look at what he says about paying for it. He hasn't a clue what the cost and how to do so.

How do you keep immigrants from coming in and collecting checks? Liberals already want to eliminate any citizenship tests on a whole bunch of things. Will they also want to do so here?

Chloe, you stated "the money exists already." How do you know this when you don't know what it will cost?

I'm not willing to dismiss the idea out of hand, but without some conservative cost/money source estimates, it is a pipe dream.

Cigar
08-12-2013, 10:27 AM
No, I suggest we do one big thing, get corrupt crony capitalistic government out of it.

Well ... that's specific ... :rollseyes:

Chloe
08-12-2013, 10:29 AM
Where do you think that BIG is going to come from if not you and me and others who earn an income?

Our money is wasted in the multi billions around the world. Why not take a percentage of that money and help end unemployment and help people who work necessary jobs that pay horribly at a chance of having some dignity and a base income to live on? I understand the fear of some people abusing it or wasting the money on junk, but wouldn't you rather a little bit of that instead of millions of unemployed people? Plus it would give people an opportunity to be comfortable enough at home to seek out better employment and not be forced to live their life handing out ketchup.

Chloe
08-12-2013, 10:34 AM
Does it bother you that he really doesn't offer any specifics as to cost and how it would be paid for other than the usual tired "soak the rich" nostrum?

Do you understand that all of those government agency welfare parasites would be redundant if this was done? Do you think liberals would really agree to the big rifs (reduction in forces) that this would make possible?

As I said, he makes a good point about the structural jobs problem. But if a solution like this is going to be considered seriously, you have to be able to show how it could actually occur and how you protect it from abuse and being collected by people who have never put anything into the system.

As for community service, the problem with that is that is requires so much bureaucracy to oversee, it defeats the purpose.

Chloe, the Democrats simply use infrastructure as an excuse to waste a lot of money on boondoggles and overpay union labor via Davis Bacon. Do a little study on that latter topic and you will find that eliminating Davis Bacon alone would allow for the purchase of 15-20 percent more infrastructure for the same money.

Infrastructure spending by government has just become another huge pork barrel.

Sorry Blad, but look at what he says about paying for it. He hasn't a clue what the cost and how to do so.

How do you keep immigrants from coming in and collecting checks? Liberals already want to eliminate any citizenship tests on a whole bunch of things. Will they also want to do so here?

Chloe, you stated "the money exists already." How do you know this when you don't know what it will cost?

I'm not willing to dismiss the idea out of hand, but without some conservative cost/money source estimates, it is a pipe dream.

I don't disagree that organizing it and the details of it would be challenging but at the very least its an idea to explore. It's better than just telling people to work harder. I don't think democrats have the best ideas but conservatives rarely offer ideas that break barriers or are out of the box either. Asking how much it will cost and stonewalling it because of cost while offering nothing in return to truly change society is not an idea it's just a barrier.

Chris
08-12-2013, 10:40 AM
Our money is wasted in the multi billions around the world. Why not take a percentage of that money and help end unemployment and help people who work necessary jobs that pay horribly at a chance of having some dignity and a base income to live on? I understand the fear of some people abusing it or wasting the money on junk, but wouldn't you rather a little bit of that instead of millions of unemployed people? Plus it would give people an opportunity to be comfortable enough at home to seek out better employment and not be forced to live their life handing out ketchup.

Because it would be wasted just the same.

Why not give the money back to those who earn it, better yet, why not not take it from us in the first place, and then let us who know better how to generate wealth spend it as we see fit and thereby benefit the common good.

Government has never done anything to alleviate poverty, only made it worse.

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 02:43 PM
I don't disagree that organizing it and the details of it would be challenging but at the very least its an idea to explore. It's better than just telling people to work harder. I don't think democrats have the best ideas but conservatives rarely offer ideas that break barriers or are out of the box either. Asking how much it will cost and stonewalling it because of cost while offering nothing in return to truly change society is not an idea it's just a barrier.

I actually agree it should be explored. If, in fact, it would replace all the handout programs and SS, it might be a worthwhile thing. Some time, for fun, do a little research on the overhead cost of those bureaucrats on the aid programs. It will shock you. The source on this is the GAO.

You will recall that I have pointed out much the same thing about the economy of the future, namely too many hands, too few work. Also that, as a result, labor continues to fall in value while capital, which is basically in the hands of a few percent, is making all the money these days.

However, asking what it will cost, how it will be paid for and how to avoid wholesale theft such as occurring in many other programs, are critical questions. If we can't answer them, we can't give the idea serious consideration.

bladimz
08-12-2013, 02:44 PM
This will be a big hit with the liberal, dope head, hippie crowd.It's "high" time this program becomes a reality. See how i did that? ..."High". Get it? That's a drug word that the liberal dope-head, hippie crowd uses.

To hell with an effort to eliminate poverty, right?

bladimz
08-12-2013, 02:53 PM
The Debt has already been reduced ... and anyone working on OUR Infrastructure, won't be working for FREE and sitting at home. :rollseyes:

If your House is leaking and a rain storm is coming ... are you going to put off maintenance because you have a balance on your credit card?
Good point. We have some serious infrastructure issues here, and they're being ignored because of political BS. They need to be dealt with; what are we going to do... Call China and see if they can fit it into their schedule?

Chris
08-12-2013, 02:58 PM
It's "high" time this program becomes a reality. See how i did that? ..."High". Get it? That's a drug word that the liberal dope-head, hippie crowd uses.

To hell with an effort to eliminate poverty, right?

Actually it shows your age, hehe.

So are you saying to hell with the War on Poverty because it has only increased the poverty rate?

bladimz
08-12-2013, 03:16 PM
Sorry Blad, but look at what he says about paying for it. He hasn't a clue what the cost and how to do so.Shehean says this:
We could pay for a Basic Income Guarantee by eliminating most of the 20th-century programs like unemployment insurance, welfare, Social Security, Section 8 housing, etc., and by having the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. Seems pretty clear to me, and makes sense. If you have any additional insight as to the program costs, please share.

Maybe you recall this:

In 1982, the state of Alaska began distributing money from state oil revenues to every resident. The Alaska Permanent Fund gives about $1000 to $2000 each year to every man, woman, and child in the state. In 2012, the amount fell to $878. There are no work requirements. The grant has reduced poverty and the inequality of income in Alaska.This came to light for a large part of the american public during the 2008 presidential campaign. Nobody seemed to have a problem with that.


How do you keep immigrants from coming in and collecting checks? Liberals already want to eliminate any citizenship tests on a whole bunch of things. Will they also want to do so here?Not that i have much regard for any of our current congressional "servents" (or the people they serve), but Sen. Schumer seems to think that an immigration bill will pass this fall; that both sides of the aisle would eventually endorse it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/chuck-schumer-immigration_n_3718606.html

bladimz
08-12-2013, 03:23 PM
Actually it shows your age, hehe.

So are you saying to hell with the War on Poverty because it has only increased the poverty rate?I don't know... Is that what i'm saying?

Chris
08-12-2013, 03:39 PM
I don't know... Is that what i'm saying?

Perhaps it should be. It's true, you know, all this War on Poverty and the result is a higher rate of poverty.

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 03:41 PM
Maybe we should change the name to the War FOR Poverty?

Liberals fighting the good fight!!

:rofl:

Chris
08-12-2013, 03:58 PM
Maybe we should change the name to the War FOR Poverty?

Liberals fighting the good fight!!

:rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

(And people say i have no sense of humor!)

Agravan
08-12-2013, 04:04 PM
I would donate money if helps someone but it's not like I spend someone's income on my clothes or anything like that. What this article is saying is that people would have a base amount income to live realistically on and then everything after that is on you.
Oh, so you have a job now? Or are you spending your parent's income on clothes for yourself?

nic34
08-12-2013, 04:15 PM
When President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty in January 1964, the poverty rate was over 19 percent. By 1972 it had fallen to less than 12 percent, and it stayed there for most of the 1970s.

Anyone who says we lost the war on poverty is flat out ignoring these numbers. We won the war on poverty. What we lost was the peace.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11460-we-won-the-war-on-poverty-then-lost-the-peace

Agravan
08-12-2013, 04:23 PM
When President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty in January 1964, the poverty rate was over 19 percent. By 1972 it had fallen to less than 12 percent, and it stayed there for most of the 1970s.

Anyone who says we lost the war on poverty is flat out ignoring these numbers. We won the war on poverty. What we lost was the peace.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11460-we-won-the-war-on-poverty-then-lost-the-peace
So where are the numbers now?

Chris
08-12-2013, 04:29 PM
When President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty in January 1964, the poverty rate was over 19 percent. By 1972 it had fallen to less than 12 percent, and it stayed there for most of the 1970s.

Anyone who says we lost the war on poverty is flat out ignoring these numbers. We won the war on poverty. What we lost was the peace.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11460-we-won-the-war-on-poverty-then-lost-the-peace




So where are the numbers now?



Noticed that, nic leaving off at the 70s.

Here:


...Launched in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the “unconditional war on poverty in America,” now in its 49th year....

From 1964 until now, the federal, local and state governments have spent $15 trillion in the War on Poverty — $12 trillion by the federal government and $3 trillion by state and local governments.

... the 2012 poverty rate “has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade.”

In 2012, “the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty,” in addition to “welfare spending by state and local governments which adds $284 billion to that figure,” writes Tanner.

On a per capita basis, this roughly $1 trillion a year in welfare spending “amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three,” explains Tanner.

...“Welfare spending increased significantly under President George W. Bush and has exploded under President Barack Obama,” states Tanner. “In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty.”

Bottom line, “the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago,” after $15 trillion in spending, Tanner reports. “Clearly, we are doing something wrong.”

@ A Key Economic Lesson (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/02/a-key-economic-lesson) and discussed here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/9942-15-1-Poverty-Rate-But-Why?highlight=poverty


Gotta say though I love nic's Keynesian quip.

Chloe
08-12-2013, 04:38 PM
Oh, so you have a job now? Or are you spending your parent's income on clothes for yourself?

No I don't currently have a job and yes my clothes and stuff are technically paid for by my parents, so yes, I guess in that way I do spend their income on my stuff but it's not like I take advantage or abuse it in any way. What I meant when I said that was I don't take from other people or needy people for my clothes and things like that.

Agravan
08-12-2013, 04:47 PM
No I don't currently have a job and yes my clothes and stuff are technically paid for by my parents, so yes, I guess in that way I do spend their income on my stuff but it's not like I take advantage or abuse it in any way. What I meant when I said that was I don't take from other people or needy people for my clothes and things like that.

So, @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565), who takes from other, or needy people to buy their clothes? If you're a proponent of zero-sum gain, then every time you spend your parent's money on a $250 pair of jeans, that means that 10 poor people have missed out on being able to buy a pair of $25 jeans.

Chris
08-12-2013, 04:48 PM
No I don't currently have a job and yes my clothes and stuff are technically paid for by my parents, so yes, I guess in that way I do spend their income on my stuff but it's not like I take advantage or abuse it in any way. What I meant when I said that was I don't take from other people or needy people for my clothes and things like that.



Technically? :-)


Long as it's all in the family...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da0eaiZ0CKw

Chloe
08-12-2013, 04:55 PM
So, @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565), who takes from other, or needy people to buy their clothes? If you're a proponent of zero-sum gain, then every time you spend your parent's money on a $250 pair of jeans, that means that 10 poor people have missed out on being able to buy a pair of $25 jeans.

I guess nobody really takes from other people or needy people or anything like that to buy their clothes I don't really know what I meant by that. I'd be ok with giving 10 people money to buy jeans but it's not my money to give away it's my parents right now. Obviously I couldn't afford to dress the world or anything like that but I don't know what I'm really trying to say right now, never mind, just ignore me.

Chris
08-12-2013, 05:18 PM
I guess nobody really takes from other people or needy people or anything like that to buy their clothes I don't really know what I meant by that. I'd be ok with giving 10 people money to buy jeans but it's not my money to give away it's my parents right now. Obviously I couldn't afford to dress the world or anything like that but I don't know what I'm really trying to say right now, never mind, just ignore me.



My earlier kidding aside, to me, you say two very important things.

One, you would would give of your own to help a reasonable number of people. If everyone did that, we'd be better of as a society. I admit I should do more personally.

Two, you recognize the money you do have right now is your parents' and that since it is theirs, they should decide how to use it.

A giving spirit and an invaluable insight.

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 05:30 PM
So, @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565), who takes from other, or needy people to buy their clothes? If you're a proponent of zero-sum gain, then every time you spend your parent's money on a $250 pair of jeans, that means that 10 poor people have missed out on being able to buy a pair of $25 jeans.

Come on, cut the kid a little slack, of course her parents buy most of her clothes at her age.

I can damn well betcha she looks a lot better in a pair of $250 jeans than either you or I do!

And a whole lot better than Peter!!

:rofl:

Peter1469
08-12-2013, 05:58 PM
Come on, cut the kid a little slack, of course her parents buy most of her clothes at her age.

I can damn well betcha she looks a lot better in a pair of $250 jeans than either you or I do!

And a whole lot better than Peter!!

:rofl:

Watch it buddy. I make these jeans look good.

And I waited for a sale, so they only cost me $120.

Mainecoons
08-13-2013, 09:11 AM
All a matter of opinion, Peter, all a matter of opinion.

:rofl:

Chris
08-13-2013, 10:03 AM
http://i.snag.gy/FRB4Z.jpg

Showing off the latest styles in fashion, maine, peter, agravan and me.

Peter has just said "I make these jeans look good." and maine is scratching his head saying "All a matter of opinion, Peter, all a matter of opinion." Agravan and I look on in dismay.

Mainecoons
08-13-2013, 03:09 PM
:smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::s miley_ROFLMAO:

Mainecoons
08-13-2013, 03:15 PM
I'm glad Chris noticed I'm the one who still has hair on his head. Most of mine is still brown, too, at the age of 69.

Eat your heart out, Pete!