slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted April 18, 2003 03:32 AM
the problem is that every person that signs up for any of it, justifies the existance of that program. and further promotes it being there.
if it is truly 'insurance' why does the gov't hand the money out.....why not the insurance underwriter. i know the difference between insurance and govt program. unemployment is called insurance, but it is a social program.
if the company is paying taxes to support unepemployment program, it is STILL coming away from the workers, because it raises the overhead for the company, who will therefore have LESS to pay the worker. if i work, and the company makes money, but 50% goes to tax (for example) and perhaps 10% of that is payed in taxes for 'unemployment' then they have lost 5% of their income that otherwise could go to the workers.
naive, perhaps, but call it what it is, don't sugarcoat. if allstate offered unemployment insurance and i payed into that, then i would have NO problem getting payment from that insurance. because that is TRULY insurance.
instead, the govt forcibly collects taxes, and doles them out. where is the insurance in that?
      
|
CrotchRocket
Moderator
Bracket Racing with Betsy
Posts: 8038
|
posted April 18, 2003 05:06 AM
Did anyone see the Movie Head of State with Chris Rock???...It has a good message!!!
CrotchRocket
____________
Jason Miller StreetBike Seminars
*****DragRacers do it better, because they dont cut Corners*****
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted April 18, 2003 07:01 AM
UH... has everyone forgotten that the econmic bust STARTED ON CLINTON'S WATCH? His wretched excess and crappy leadership started this mess, and I think Bush is about to lead us out of it - economic indicators are up and things are looking better.
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted April 18, 2003 08:33 AM
We had 12 years (1980 to 1992) of not good economic times. If the programs work, why do they only seem to bear fruit when the originators are not in office. Anyone think that maybe the threat of of Clinton not being at the Helm started the down turn  I know the thought of Bush or Gore did not make me feel safe. John McCain, not that is presidential material. No shipping out of his guard duty for 1 year. No daddys coat tails to ride. Did well in school also!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
tbbt
Expert Class
Posts: 114
|
posted April 18, 2003 08:41 AM
 Edited By: tbbt on 18 Apr 2003 09:58
quote:
the problem is that every person that signs up for any of it, justifies the existance of that program. and further promotes it being there.
if it is truly 'insurance' why does the gov't hand the money out.....why not the insurance underwriter. i know the difference between insurance and govt program. unemployment is called insurance, but it is a social program.
if the company is paying taxes to support unepemployment program, it is STILL coming away from the workers, because it raises the overhead for the company, who will therefore have LESS to pay the worker. if i work, and the company makes money, but 50% goes to tax (for example) and perhaps 10% of that is payed in taxes for 'unemployment' then they have lost 5% of their income that otherwise could go to the workers.
naive, perhaps, but call it what it is, don't sugarcoat. if allstate offered unemployment insurance and i payed into that, then i would have NO problem getting payment from that insurance. because that is TRULY insurance.
instead, the govt forcibly collects taxes, and doles them out. where is the insurance in that?
First, I appreciate you disdain for "programs". But, you still seem to be viewing UI through lenses that make it look like welfare.
I'm not sure why you would feel better about it if UI was administered by a private insurance company vs. the government. First, insurance underwriters are in business to make a profit. That means a percentage of the money paid for the insurance goes into their pocket. It also makes the insurance more expensive. Second, even if a private insurance company was underwritting it, it would still be calculated as part of your compensation package. Meaning that money that might be paid to you directly as part of your base pay is redirected to pay for UI, except now even a larger percentage of money has to be redirected because the UI is more expensive.
I wonder if you feel the same way about the health insurance (if you have any) that you get through your company, since it basically works the same way? Do you consider that to be a social program? Although you pay for part of the insurance directly, you still pay for it indirectly via the company's part just like UI. The company takes money (that it could pay you as part of your base pay) and pays their portion of your insurance premiums. If you got sick or injured, would you refuse to use your health insurance because it would make you feel better about yourself? Would it make you feel like your were not getting a hand out from a program?
How about people's pensions? You know if the company didn't have to pay peoples pensions, then perhaps a portion of the saving could go to increase your base pay. Why we're at it you could lump the companies 401k matching funds into the pot as well. And then there is workers compensation etc.
Perhaps you should go get a job that offers no benefits. That way you could feel really noble.
But let me ask you, do you really think that if a company didn't have to pay UI that they would redirect that money and increase their workers base pay? I could ask the same thing about the other benefit packages (or "programs"). Or do you think that they would hire more people (when they only need X amount of bodies to get the job done)?
Lastly, Unemployment Insurance exists, whether you like it or not. It's a "program" that will most likely never go away. You have to pay for it, although indirectly. And since you have paid for it, you might as well use it.
____________
AKA: T^2
|
tbbt
Expert Class
Posts: 114
|
posted April 18, 2003 08:52 AM
quote:
We had 12 years (1980 to 1992) of not good economic times. If the programs work, why do they only seem to bear fruit when the originators are not in office. Anyone think that maybe the threat of of Clinton not being at the Helm started the down turn I know the thought of Bush or Gore did not make me feel safe. John McCain, not that is presidential material. No shipping out of his guard duty for 1 year. No daddys coat tails to ride. Did well in school also!
The economy is like an aircraft carrier, or huge leviathan. It doesn't turn around on a dime. It takes a long time to make the turn after it has been commanded to do so.
Most economists that I've heard speak on the subject say that the economic policies implemented by an administration often take years to take effect. In fact the fruits of those policies are often not seen until that administration is out of office.
____________
AKA: T^2
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted April 18, 2003 09:01 AM
private company does not have the power and ability to use deadly force to enhance their objectives.
as such i would rather unemployment insurance be private.
my medical insurance IS part of a benefit package,that exists WHILE i am employed. i pay into that as well as the company, who, because of using mass-purchasing power, can get much better rates than i can alone.
the same reason we get better gas prices than europe, we buy in quantity.
now, when i cease working for the company, and i stop contributing to the medical benefits, they stop. when i no longer amn providing service to the company, my benefits end.
unemployment COMPENSATION (different from insurance) does the opposite, when you are NOT providing service to the company, the govt is making them STILL pay you, with THEM deciding who gets what and how much.
also, unemployment comp is now being used as a tool to add other programs, say for instance, 2 years of schooling PAID for by the taxpayers, via the 'free money' of the unemployment administration.
i have NEVER in my 10+ years of govt service, EVER seen ANY place where the government means of performing a function was EVER more efficient than civilian and private companies. EVERY single thing that the govt administered directly, was ineptly done. 50 layers of management, reams of paperwork, for a simple item. i would be willing to bet that were unemployment compensation turned over to private company, it would be streamlined, VOLUNTARY, and MORE efficient, ie more of the funds actually being available to use for insurance payouts. everything i saw privatized in military became faster, better and more efficient.
UNLESS there was union involvement.... but that's another story altogether...
|
tbbt
Expert Class
Posts: 114
|
posted April 18, 2003 10:03 AM
Edited By: tbbt on 18 Apr 2003 11:11
quote:
my medical insurance IS part of a benefit package,that exists WHILE i am employed. i pay into that as well as the company, who, because of using mass-purchasing power, can get much better rates than i can alone.
Actually, the company doesn't really pay for any of it. You pay for it, directly and indirectly. The part that the company pays for the insurance would otherwise be paid to you as part of your base pay.
quote:
the same reason we get better gas prices than europe, we buy in quantity.
now, when i cease working for the company, and i stop contributing to the medical benefits, they stop. when i no longer amn providing service to the company, my benefits end.
Not exactly true. For example, I got laid off in October. My health benefits remained effective thru January (almost 4 months after I left work). Under COBRA I can continue my health insurance coverage for another year (after January) at the group rates obtained by the company. You may say, "but you have to pay the companies portion of the premium now, as well as what you were paying before." True. But in essence, you were paying (indirectly) the "companies portion" anyway. You just never saw it. This is still a health insurance benefit that was part of your benefits package garnered from your company. It's a benefit that is post-employment. You would have to pay a great deal more if you were to purchase individual health coverage vs. the company negotiated rates mandated by COBRA.
quote:
unemployment COMPENSATION (different from insurance) does the opposite, when you are NOT providing service to the company, the govt is making them STILL pay you, with THEM deciding who gets what and how much.
Hmmm. You know they pay retirement pensions after the employee is no longer providing services to the company. Perhaps we should get rid of those too...
Again, are they (the company) still paying you anything? Especially since the employees really pay for UI...
Generally, everybody who has worked full time for the required time period receives the same weekly, or bi-weekly payment from UI. So there is little picking and choising who gets what and how much by the government.
quote:
also, unemployment comp is now being used as a tool to add other programs, say for instance, 2 years of schooling PAID for by the taxpayers, via the 'free money' of the unemployment administration.
Sounds to me that there must be funds still left over that remained unclaimed (not always the case). Which is a good thing. It means that less people are out of work. Still, if they are funding programs like "2 years of schooling" from the UI funds then the taxpayers are not paying anything for it. Companies are paying for it, which means employees are paying for it. But the money isn't coming out of the general revenue obtained from the taxpayers. I will say however, that I would rather see any surplus go back to the companies, and back to the employees vs. going to programs that the funds were never intended to go for.
Perhaps if more people were less noble and actually drew from the UI funds that they and their fellow coworkers had paid for, then maybe there would be much less funds left over to be siphoned off for unintended programs.
____________
AKA: T^2
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted April 18, 2003 10:59 AM
personally i dont really care WHO handles employment insurance, i just wish it were managed better. the one sentence out of slug's original post that really struck a chord in me was "oh, i'll sign up for unemployment and get free money for the govt while i pretend to job search". i'v seen that WAY too many times, & it pisses me right the fuck off. whether the money for the program comes from govt or a private policy, does NOT make it ok to take advantage of. that "i paid into it" mentatlity is complete & utter bullshit. u pay into medical insurance, does that give u the right to get into a serious car crash every week? hell no, cause u would very quickly suck more out of the system than u put into it. same goes for abusers of EI/UI. i worked with one guy many years ago who was boasting about how he worked for 6 weeks (construction labour), asked the foreman to lay him off, then went on EI for the max of 13 weeks. then he repeated the cycle, over and over. seems lots of people do this, tho thankfully they seem to be a bit stricter now.
point is, iuts that stupid mentality that drives me insane, the "i have a right to it" or worse yet, the "it's owed to me" syndrome. u are only owed benefits if u really need them, if theres no other resort. if u'v spent a month looking for a new job & cant find anything good, get whatever crap job u can in teh meantime. that doesnt mean u cant keep lookin, but it doesnt take 80 hours a week to search for a job (at least not once u'v made the initial push for about a month), so u have time to work elsewhere. now i'm not stupid enough to say there's no excepetions or other considerations. if u have a family to support and the crap job doesnt pay enough to do so, whereas ur EI from the previous job does, well then u dont have much of a choice. situations like that. but the main point is, only use it if u HAVE to, not cause u paid into it & now is convenient time to take from it, cause inevitably that means some people break even or even make a profit off the system, whereas others lose everything they put into it. and imho THAT would be more socialist than anything we have in canada.
fuck leeches 
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted April 18, 2003 11:01 AM
"Actually, the company doesn't really pay for any of it. You pay for it, directly and indirectly. The part that the company pays for the insurance would otherwise be paid to you as part of your base pay. ""
tbbt, I don't know what planet you live on but I own a company that pays my employees competitive pay PLUS benefits which includes Medical, I don't provide benefits in liue of compensation. I sure would like to know how you think it is that I as an employer am not really paying for it. You are most certainly not informed.
____________
It's a free country brother
|
TedG
Moderator
Posts: 8222
|
posted April 18, 2003 11:56 AM
I don't have time to read all of the stuff in this thread but I want to comment on some of the things Z says. I agree losing a life over art is not a good thing. But, remember we went in to kick out the government, in so doing it became our responsibility to protect Iraq. We took on all police, government, and infrastructure duties the moment we put them on the run. I also agree that it was probably Husseins shitheads who did the looting and damage. But we knew going in what was to happen, The Iraqi people are not our enemies. Does this zoo stuff sound familiar? All we needed to do was be prepared. I'd bet if we snuck in some special forces and waited around places of value we would have bagged some important bad guys. If they were properly prepared all the important suff would have been waiting on a ship, ready to deliver at a moments notice. Like it or not, Iraq is now our responsibility, yes, yours and mine.
____________
Ted
2000 Green ZX12 sold
The fast color!!
Green 2005 ZX10R
2009 Concours Black ABS
|
tbbt
Expert Class
Posts: 114
|
posted April 18, 2003 11:58 AM
Edited By: tbbt on 18 Apr 2003 13:08
quote:
"Actually, the company doesn't really pay for any of it. You pay for it, directly and indirectly. The part that the company pays for the insurance would otherwise be paid to you as part of your base pay. ""
tbbt, I don't know what planet you live on but I own a company that pays my employees competitive pay PLUS benefits which includes Medical, I don't provide benefits in liue of compensation.
I already made the point that it is unlikely that companies would take the money that they pay in benefits and redirect it to the base pay of employees. They would more likely take that money and pocket it as profit.
You could do the same. Nothing says that you have to provide health insurance, or make matching payments on 401k's etc. But then again you don't have to be competitive when it comes to getting the best talent either.
No you don't pay benefits in lieu of compensation. You pay benefits as part of compensation. That being said, you make the payments for said benefits on the employees behalf, as part of their compensation, not as a gift from you.
quote:
I sure would like to know how you think it is that I as an employer am not really paying for it. You are most certainly not informed.
What you are paying for is compensation to employees that provide you a service. Part of that compensation goes directly to that employee as part of their base pay and part of that compensation goes indirectly to employee as part of their benefits package. So you aren't paying anything to the government, or health insurance companies etc., as a 'gift' to the employee out of your kind heartedness. You are paying what the employee has earned (as part of their negotiated compensation package) through service rendered to you. Theoretically, employees could take that money paid for their benefits as direct monetary compensation (base pay). Since they don't, it can be viewed that the employee actually pays for their own benefits as part of the wages that they don't receive directly (dollars not recieved directly in their base pay).
____________
AKA: T^2
|
Zhooligan
Moderator
Post Whore Extraordinaire!
Posts: 3829
|
posted April 18, 2003 12:06 PM
What is so funny about most of Americans and frankly other Western Industrialized countries is how people complain about the self inflicted problems. First of all in America the major majority of taxes in excess of 50% are paid by the top 5% wage earners. The largest group of whiners and cryers that bitch bout corporate welfare etc. don't pay taxes. They get everything they paid in back plus addtional rebates. In other words they are paid by tax payers to live in this country. Vincent you need to understand that when I said everyone pay taxes I mean everyone. If you are married with a combined income of 16,000 dollars it is not my obligation to give you a tax rebate. Every living adult in America that makes a nickle needs to pay taxes.
Slug who is a fairly conservative guy, seems to fall on the far side of things and wants taxes elimianted, they are illegal etc. No civilized society in the world can exist and provide services, roads etc. for it's citizens without taxes. I have no issue with paying a fair tax. And using it for defense, roads, and even on programs that help honest people that need help. If there are people that honestly believe that charity, and families will take care of all of this you are either foolish or really don't care.
What I do care is providing funding for social programs like welfare that have proven to be a failure, set aside programs for people of color, discriminated races, religions etc. These programs are in fact a sham. I have in the past 20 years been an expert in the minority business enterprise system. I have consulted, taight, preached, propped up, you name it minority and women owned business enterprises. And the program as it exists does not help honest folks. It rewards the owner who merely pretends to be the business owner.
The fact is that America is a victim of it's people. This board is an example. When someone gets a new thing or toy what are the typical questions. "where did you get it?" "Did you get a good deal?" "How do we buy it cheaper?" And ultimately when the group finds the cheapest outlet everyone runs there. It is this mentality that makes Wal-Mart a billion dollar company. They buy and commission to have their goods made overseas and they really don't care if the product is made by slaves (Typical of China) or little kids (Korea, Pakistan, India to name a few). They don't care if people die from the chemicals or work conditions. Certainly they pretend to but the fact that they buy from these folks is the true indicator. Now Vincent will say "see greedy corporate America!" Well guess what? Wal-Mart and the rest do this because Vincent (not really picking on you Vincent) and the rest of America will buy the cheapest [product available that meets their needs and expectations.
What this means is we now live in a country that specializes in selling software, hi-tech bullshit, stocks bonds etc. And then we sell house and buildings for these folks to sell their smoke and mirrors in. Obviously we have some cars, and food to go with it. The question is what happens when someone like Syria, or or Brazil or who knows what little country stumbles on a new operating platform or a way to make a better chip? Our country can't wven makes it's own shoes anymore!
Of course people ask why is it that that has happened? Well I know in my case that in the past 20 years my house's value has doubled. While peole who do my job their salary has quadrupled. Remeber when doctors made a $100,000 a year? They were rich. Country clubs etc. Well now you have Longshoreman making that kind of money. You have hiteck people making huge dollars. So what we have is a society that wants to be paid huge incomes, buy products made by slaves for less then they cost, and pay no taxes.
People ask me what has happened to the craftman carpenters? I say they have retired or found a different job. Why? Becasue 99.9% of the people out there don't want to pay a fair wage or cost for the work. They want it done for less. I was taught something along time ago and it is true today. Essentially there are three things involved in a product. Cost, Time and Quality. It is not resonable to expect the product to be the cheapest, yet the highest quality and have it done in record time. And this holds true today except for in the case where you can in effect in China say to the guy, I want it now, it had better be the best ever, it is of course free and as a slave if it isn't done I will kill you and your family. Pretty grim but essentially more reality then most would care to admit.
I would challenge the people on this board to think about this the next time you buy something. And if you are content buying things as cheap as you can, don't care who makes it, don't bitch about our Industry leaving this country, don't complain when the economic cycle comes around and smacks you. And don't complain when we can't defend ourselves because our tanks and planes are made overseas.
____________
To those who do not count their life in years, but in how life
has touched them in the past and how much it can hold in the
future; -- Youth is forever.
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted April 18, 2003 12:07 PM
There is one thing the "Government" is better than anyone anywhere Wasting Money!! $50,000 toilet seats for B52, $16,000 Claw Hammers. Would any private company ever pay $50,000 for a toilet seat?? I do not think so! If companies did not have to pay for unemployment insurance, we could have higher wages. The cost of Everything is figured in when someone is Hired. The "Package" is now almost as much as the Wages!
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted April 18, 2003 12:19 PM
LOL Gov't account is interesting Vincent  . I love how some gov't agencies/employees try to hide cost over runs or lazy accounting in items like 50K toilet seats heehe. Too bad the a-holes who do that kind of crap never seem to take the fall for it.
|
Zhooligan
Moderator
Post Whore Extraordinaire!
Posts: 3829
|
posted April 18, 2003 12:20 PM
The interesting things about this stuff is it goes to how the government writes the specifications and laws. I have done projects for the government where they have essentially blended the specifications of two or three items to create one. i.e. a crane. I did a job where we had to provide an overhead crane in the building we built. The specification called for a 4 ton overhead trolley crane. This type of crane could be purchased for approx. $16,000 on the normal market.
The specification the government createdwas a 4 ton crane with 25 ton bearings and rollers. They also called out metric specifcations. Also as a part of the Buy America requirement we were required to buy the crane in America. As aresult after numerous meetings with government idiots, explaining what it was they had written, talking with the end user and confirming that they just needed a regular old 4 ton trolley crane we were informed it was to be provided as specified.
We ended up hiring a American Crane company to build us a one of a kind, custom crane and paid a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the crane. The net result is the government got a one of kind, no real parts readily available for service kind of a crane. And the minority contractor went bankrupt because they had to eat the cost difference between what really was intended versus the one off unit.
Stupid people spending our money and killing us at the same time.
____________
To those who do not count their life in years, but in how life
has touched them in the past and how much it can hold in the
future; -- Youth is forever.
|
tbbt
Expert Class
Posts: 114
|
posted April 18, 2003 12:40 PM
quote:
If companies did not have to pay for unemployment insurance, we could have higher wages. The cost of Everything is figured in when someone is Hired. The "Package" is now almost as much as the Wages!
Sure. You are right, the price of the package is probably steep.
But do you really think that the companies would augment employess wages if they weren't using those funds to pay for benefits?
If the company wasn't paying benefits, how well would they do at finding the best talent and dedicated employees that stick with the company?
How dedicated and talented of an employee would you be able to find if in the interview you said, "By the way, we don't pay UI insurance, so if you get laid-off you are on your own."? In most cases I would doubt that that would go off as a good selling point in the potential employees mind.
Arguing about the continued existance of UI is a mute point. As with any tax or government program, once instated, they never go away.
The question is - Do you draw from a benefit that you basically pay for (even if you don't want to), if the time comes that you need it?
Would you do better at finding you own health insurance, if you could directly take the money paid in your behalf (for your benefits) and purchase you own heath insurance?
Slug made a valid statement that companies get better insurance rates through their buying power. It would be hard to do as well buying individual health coverage.
As for abusing the system. I don't think there are any systems or programs that are not abused. That's people for you. I know road construction workers here that get laid off every winter. They don't have to do job searchs because the are on temporary lay off. The draw from unemployment and work side jobs under the table. When spring comes around they go back to work.
But then again there a legit cases where UI does some good.
To insinuate (as has been done here) that anybody that makes a UI claim is a worthless bum freeloading off the taxpayers is a bit much.
____________
AKA: T^2
|
Zhooligan
Moderator
Post Whore Extraordinaire!
Posts: 3829
|
posted April 18, 2003 12:48 PM
Companies get a better deal on insurance because they don't have life vested civil servant employees. That have better benefit packages, better retirement programs etc. that people with similar jobs in the job market pool.
Wages, Insurance, benefits etc. are all part of the compensation package. And Labor burden including FICA,FUTA,SUTA, and L&I all add to the cost of an employee. And certainly as an employer you have to offer a good package to employees to attract and keep them.
The Unemployment abuse in this country is amazing. But it is our good liberal politicians and unions that have really made it easy. It used to be required that you actually look for a job but now Unemployment is not a benefit it is a right!
Good news for my company today is that our L&I rate doubled for our emplyees. We have not had a claim or accident of any kind in the past 5 years. So much for being rewarded for a good performance!
____________
To those who do not count their life in years, but in how life
has touched them in the past and how much it can hold in the
future; -- Youth is forever.
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted April 18, 2003 01:17 PM
Sure. You are right, the price of the package is probably steep.
But do you really think that the companies would augment employess wages if they weren't using those funds to pay for benefits?
He-l NO! Most people do not even know why Labor Unions Came into existance. To protect child labors! Kids 8, 10 & 12 were in factories for 10 & 12 hours a day. If anyone has an old pocket watch built before 1920 that has chain driven gears, the chains were made by children between 10 & 12 years old. Younger children could see ok, but could not control their hands and children over 12 could not see well enough in the dark factories than the assembly only moved to get the light through the windows. The children could only do this for a year or two because they would start losing their eyesight in working with such small objects.
The main Problems in America is that we are not a single race of people and everyone thinks that they are better than someone else. SO everyone wants to take advantage of someone. This means that when the unions are out of favor, that the Owners are not smart enough to keep them away by treating the workers fairly and the unions come back to power and they are not smart enough to keep the power by treating the owners fairly ETC
|
Zhooligan
Moderator
Post Whore Extraordinaire!
Posts: 3829
|
posted April 18, 2003 01:46 PM
My take of Unions these days is kind of like what happened with my mom. She smoked 4 packs a day for just over 50 years. They found she had an inoperable malignant tumor in her lung. So they proceeded to take her thru Chemo and radiation treatments. Ultimately, 13 months laters they pronaounced the tumor was gone. The Chemo and radiation had cured the tumor. Unfortunately the chemo and specifically the radiation therapy cooked her lungs and she died.
The Unions are effectively the cure that is killing the working man. They have lost their focus and become worse then the people they are susposed to be protecting everyone from.
____________
To those who do not count their life in years, but in how life
has touched them in the past and how much it can hold in the
future; -- Youth is forever.
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted April 21, 2003 03:15 AM
tbbt that is a HUGE stretch.
____________
It's a free country brother
|
Ninjaman12R
Needs a job
as a Deal's Gap tour guide.
Posts: 4767
|
posted April 21, 2003 05:02 AM
You fucking idiots.................
Why can't you all just listen to what Bart said!!!! It's obvious the man knows what he is talking about. (friggin' classic Bart!!!!)
I think all you tight asses need to sit down, twist up a big fatty, take a few tokes, then a few more, and relax. Enjoy the fact that you were able to get up out of bed this morning. As long as you are alive and kicking you've got everything in the world to be happy about. Simplify brothers, break it down to the basics.....recognize. Don't hate,.....appreciate.
I'll keep my politcal views to myself, I just want everyone to be as happy as I am. I honestly mean that guys.
____________
What we're dealin' with here is a complete lack of respect for the law.
Sheriff Buford T. Justice of TEXAS
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted April 21, 2003 06:18 AM
LOL - I'll stay happy as long as my taxes don't go up to socialist levels - after all, what would be my incentive to produce if I lost it all in taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC