All the land closest to area's of employment, medical care, etc are well developed.
Even if the government got out of the land business, every bit of it would be bought by people who have capital, because it is a finite resource that will only go up in value.
So landlords, free to charge whatever they wish, have proven that either they will charge prices that low income workers cannot afford, or will not maintain those inexpensive places safely.
The result is that people will have no where left to live.
And they cannot just, move away. There is nowhere left for them to move too.
Homelessness is another term for trespassing, squatting and stealing of others land, because everybody needs a place to live--a place to exist at.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, there really is no choice. If you have 2 rapidly growing kids who need clothes, if you lost your job that was paying well you'd pretty much take anything and I do mean anything. Because you would not have a choice if you've filled out dozens of applications and couldn't get the same job in your field. Instead you'd have to take a job in a factory with terrible conditions that won't even let you take a break to go to the bathroom if you need to. Like it or not, pure laissez faire capitalism is not a good thing. It is common sense to not so much as pamper workers but to provide them with safe conditions, enough pay to do more than just exist on and benefits. If you have a bunch of machines you have to make sure they are well oiled and have working parts, right? Workers manufactor for their companies and sometimes spend money on the product. It's common sense to make sure they have good conditions not nessarily out of charity or out of morality but because it's logical.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
There was some complaint about my quick trickle down post, so let me clarify.
If we clarify that the part of Trickle Down that stands for "Giving Money to the Rich" is just a bad way of saying "Returning tax money to those who have given it" then allow me to clarify that "Giving money to the poor" should be translated to a clear, "Creating works programs to rebuild infrastrure while creating jobs."
I was not questioning the moral ethicacy of Trickle Down v.s. Trickle Up. Those who favor the "trickle down" theory sell it to the rest of us as a beneficial economic theory.
They even point out that the jobs and increased productivity will allow for increased tax revenues as it eventually makes its way down to the re-employed workers.
I am argueing that Trickle Up would also give us increased productivity and increased tax revenues as it eventually makes its way up to the business owners.
My big argument coincides with the comment that most of the people who are wealthy are business owners and investors. They would invest any excess capitol, which would increase US Employment.
However, a % of the wealthy are not investors. Another % would invest in profitable enterprises outside of the US.
Money put in at the lower end of the economic ladder would almost completely be used in the US (except money paid to foreign workers, a % of which is sent back to their country of origin. Since most of these are illegals, and I am not suggesting illegals be allowed into Governmental works programs, that should not matter). Admiteddly a large % of that money would be spent on inexpensive foreign imported items. Still that money would have to go through the hands of American merchants and service providers.
The % that stays in this country to work its way back into the tax revenue base, or into individual pockets of US Citizens would be greater.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even if the government got out of the land business, every bit of it would be bought by people who have capital, because it is a finite resource that will only go up in value.
This is not necessarily true. The reason real-estate is climbing recently is because of massive inflationary policies by the fed. It is possible for land to lose value.
But this is beside the point.
quote: So landlords, free to charge whatever they wish
This is so false, I don't even know where to begin. Why are not rents in the millions of dollars then?
quote: have proven that either they will charge prices that low income workers cannot afford, or will not maintain those inexpensive places safely.
Is it not their right to price their OWN property as they see fit? If I want to sell my house, do you want to set the price so that low income people can buy it, or should I be allowed to charge what I want for it?
quote: The result is that people will have no where left to live.
So, you're telling me that even though there would be great demand for housing, there would be no one stepping in to make money and sell those people housing?
quote: No, there really is no choice.
Yes, really, there is.
quote: Like it or not, pure laissez faire capitalism is not a good thing.
I couldn't disagree with you more. It is in fact, the ONLY system which works. Our current system is clearly broken.
quote: If you have a bunch of machines you have to make sure they are well oiled and have working parts, right?
Yes, but only if you OWN those machines. The government does not OWN me.
quote: It's common sense to make sure they have good conditions not nessarily out of charity or out of morality but because it's logical.
Common sense indeed. Those companies which don't treat their workers properly will quickly find that they have a bunch of worthless workers and cannot be productive.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It is in fact, the ONLY system which works."
This, of course, depends on how you define "works."
It does what it claims to do, and by that definition it's the best out there -- but what it claims to do is not, in my opinion, the best thing for society.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Giving money to the poor" should be translated to a clear, "Creating works programs to rebuild infrastrure while creating jobs."
Dan, those two are the same. From Where does the money to create these works projects come from?
quote: I am argueing that Trickle Up would also give us increased productivity and increased tax revenues as it eventually makes its way up to the business owners.
What you call trickle up, is in fact some odd form of wealth redistribution which does not take into account how our economy works. By what right could the government STEAL money from those who earn it, but may not even be rich, and give that money to the non-productive?
quote: Money put in at the lower end of the economic ladder would almost completely be used in the US
Why not cut the private citizen out of the loop entirely and just have the gov send ALL the money and property where it deems it to be most needed?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, Trickle up would just be another socialist venture. The poor don't have as much money as the rich, so let's give them a lot to make up for it. That's really what it boils down to. Regardless of which builds more jobs, you still have to explain to me why the poor deserve to get the money that the rich worked for.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It does what it claims to do, and by that definition it's the best out there -- but what it claims to do is not, in my opinion, the best thing for society.
Who are you to decide what is best for society? Why not allow each individual to decide for his or her self?
I would argue that the concept of "greater good" is one that is always unjust. What's good for "society" can never be determined by any logical means, so why not let individuals decide what is best for themselves?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
People will always sell property to the poor. I mean they are a market with no money.
That is why so many of todays poor already live ten or twelve to an apartment.
We have plenty of working poor already who have no housing. What few government shelters exist are full. How will removing rent limits and poor housing subsidies going to increase the number of investors and real estate owners who want to rent thier land to the working poor who can't afford $500 a month rent?
In your world, what is a person to do if they have no place to live--if their house is reposed, or a wife leaves an abusive husband with only the clothes on her back and a suitcase (coworkers story, but not only one) until they can get enough money to pay the rent?
I know. Without the burden of taxes, why millions will be donated to church groups to open up homeless shelters.
You keep saying that you don't think the government, who you have some say in by your vote, is not the person you want making safety and health decisions for you.
You prefer to leave it to the marketplace.
You ignore our fears that, if left to the notoriously short sighted owners and investors, those decisions will still be out of your hands, and in the hands of nameless, faceless corporations who are only interested in your money.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Regardless of which builds more jobs, you still have to explain to me why the poor deserve to get the money that the rich worked for.
This is a good point, even if socialism did work, how can it be morally justified?
quote: In your world, what is a person to do if they have no place to live--if their house is reposed, or a wife leaves an abusive husband with only the clothes on her back and a suitcase (coworkers story, but not only one) until they can get enough money to pay the rent?
The same thing that person should do in this world.
quote: if left to the notoriously short sighted owners and investors, those decisions will still be out of your hands
It is no one's responsibility but your own to make plans for your future. If you want someone to plan all your actions, warm up your breakfast, tuck you in at night, and give you an allowance, you are free to let someone do that. Please stay out of my wallet while you are doing it though!
quote: nameless, faceless corporations who are only interested in your money.
Can you name for me one thing that they should be interested in that isn't money or a way to make money? You are so quick to label corporations as evil, yet without their work, you would have nothing. Do you think that all corporations should me reworked into state-owned non-profit organizations? Perhaps they would be more caring then?
I repeat, I am not trying to argue the Morality of which theory is better.
People who talk of Trickle Down do not tell the middle class, "This is a fairer system". They defend it on purely economic grounds, saying that it would be best for everyone to get an economy in recession moving.
They claim that a tax cut for them is good for everyone.
All I am claiming is that economically, if what we are after is improving the economy, then Trickle Up is better than Trickle down.
If you can't come up with a purely economic reason then I will assume that most of the cries about how great Trickle Down is, is in reality, a cover for a more libertarian economic system.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing, I'm not talking about snatching money out of the hands of the rich to give to the poor or some sort of Robin Hood vigilantism. I'm talking about paying the poor enough money to be self sufficent. So that less poor people have to go on welfare or foodstamps in order to cover expenses because their checks are so small. I'm not saying, let's snatch away their mansions and put 12 poor families into them. I'm talking about a middle ground between pure capitalism, which in the past did a great deal of damage to society and in third world countries is doing more and socialism which is an imperfect system. I'm talking about keeping jobs in America instead of shipping them overseas and thinking about long term profit instead of just short term gain. I want to narrow the gap between rich and poor, not widen it because widening it really hurts society. I'm talking about the importance of making housing affordable so that people will complain less about people being on the streets. Middle ground. That's what I'd like to achieve.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: All I am claiming is that economically, if what we are after is improving the economy, then Trickle Up is better than Trickle down.
First of all, I refuse to keep using the meaningless term "trickle down." I am not even 100% sure of what it means. Let us speak of Laissez Faire capitalism and Welfare-statism.
Under welfare-statism, all those who produce wealth, laborers, factory owners, capital investors, etc, are taxed some non-zero amount. We can agree on this, right?
Now that money, for simplicity's sake, lets say its $1000, is taken from all the producers. So they, as a group, have $1000 fewer dollars.
Now, what group of people in the economy tend to create jobs? Is it the poor, who have no capital or capital goods? Or rather, is it those who are already productive, and have saved capital and acrued capital goods? I would choose the second of those two.
So if the idea is to grow the economy, do we allow capital and resources to accumulate with those who know how to use them(read as the successful businessmen), or do we take those resources from them before they can use them, and spend them on people who do NOT know how to use them?
The choice is clear. If we want to have a successful economy, it cannot be an egalitarian economy. Each individual will recieve what he/she deserves on the open market.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here's the thing, I'm not talking about snatching money out of the hands of the rich to give to the poor or some sort of Robin Hood vigilantism.
Then you go on to say:
quote: I'm talking about paying the poor enough money to be self sufficent.
Where is this money coming from?
If people are payed ANYTHING but their free-market wage, it is their own responsibility to decide what to do. Forcing companies to pay above the fair market wage is destructive of wealth.
quote: which in the past did a great deal of damage to society and in third world countries is doing more
Please give at least one example for each, keeping in mind that imperialism is not a result of capitalism, it is a result of statism.
quote: I'm talking about keeping jobs in America instead of shipping them overseas and thinking about long term profit instead of just short term gain.
Keeping jobs in america! Sounds good, but its also destructive of wealth and bad for the economy to interfere in the natural flow of capital.
quote: I want to narrow the gap between rich and poor, not widen it because widening it really hurts society.
We must all SUBMITT to the greater good.
quote: Middle ground. That's what I'd like to achieve.
So you want a balance between capitalism and socialism? What about our country today is not socialist enough for you? Where is there too much freedom?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Examples- Child labour Bad working conditions in mines and factories Environmental distruction
Just to name a few. In the past and in the present.
The problem is that if you don't respect your workers that work so that you can be wealthy sooner or later they do get mad. No one's going to put up with unfair conditions for long. In American there are probably laws against sweatshops and paying workers 10 cents an hour for 15-18 hours worth of work. So what do they do? Move to another country, pay the workers unfair wagesand reap the profits until these workers either get fed up, or workers in America can no longer afford their products... Which could be far fetched, but not impossible. It's true that companies exist to make money but they are not exempt from simple social responsibility.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's where I have trouble wrapping my mind around the “affordable housing” issue. Let’s say I own a house. I’m moving out of the area and decide to sell my house rather than keep it and rent it out. When I put it up on the market, I am naturally going to try to get the highest price possible for it. Assuming I’m honest about the condition of the house, I doubt anyone would think it’s wrong to do that.
When I moved into my old neighborhood, families with a single wage-earner with an above average job or families with two slightly lower than average jobs for the area could afford a 3 BR townhouse fairly easily. Families with two average wage-earners could afford a 4 BR single family house, and there were a few even nicer houses in the area. It’s a medium to long commute to DC, decent commute to the Virginia outer-ring jobs, good schools, nice neighborhood, etc. Basically, it was a quintessential neighborhood for young families just starting out.
My townhouse went up in value about 79% in 7 years (believe me, my property taxes went up with accordingly). I made a decent profit on the house. Which, I think, most people would agree is perfectly fine and dandy.
But, this increase meant the neighborhood is only suitable for people with at least one above average and one average job, or couples who were lucky enough to buy a house before the housing boom and got enough equity out of their old house to afford a new one. What this means is, this neighborhood is no longer really a starter neighborhood. There’s only two ways to keep this from happening: either force me to sell my house for a lower price, or somehow subsidize the construction and sale of more housing.
I hope no one thinks the first option is fair. The second is highly problematic. Remember, two average wage-earners could probably not afford a house in this neighborhood. This means that way more than half the families in my area might require some sort of subsidy. To me, this seems impossible to pull off without devastating the economy.
Looking at apartment complexes doesn’t help matters. If I invest in an apartment complex, wouldn’t I naturally want to rent it out for the highest possible price? And who would say that this unfair, given that it’s my money being risked and that I am responsible for repairs, maintenance liability, and property taxes. Is a property owner supposed to say to someone willing to take a small apartment because it’s more convenient to work, “No thanks – keep your extra $500 a month.”
quote:First of all, I refuse to keep using the meaningless term "trickle down." I am not even 100% sure of what it means. Let us speak of Laissez Faire capitalism and Welfare-statism.
That's why debating economics with you is a useless gesture: you demand an extreme in one direction, and anything not directly applying to that extreme is assumed (by you) to be the extreme opposite. The problem with this thinking is that both of those extremes are piss-poor economic systems for all but those who are in positions of power, it's just that the places those positions are in are different for each extreme.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is true - "trickle up" and "trickle down" both refer to different ways to tweak our current economic system, which is largely capitalist with government providing regulatory, wealth-distribution, and service-provision components.
Frankly, the call to remove regulatory aspects is the weakest part of Laissez Faire capitalist doctrine. Regulatory controls are necessary to ensure that the free flow of information necessary for capitalism occurs. At minimum, there must be a consistent set of legal rules for tort, contracts, and property. Since no two parties ever fully articulate every contingency of an agreement, there must be a set of default contract terms and expectations of care or the market will not function. Further, people must be able to rely on the consistency of property rights - this does not meant they have to be absolute, just predictable. These controls allow people to make reasonable decisions about the proper way to allocate their resources and bargain for goods and services. Safety regulations and such would not be strictly necessary if the information-forcing rules were able to be absolutely enforced. Since they're not, there needs to be a minimum floor for such things as health, safety, etc. Finally, there is the old town commons problem, in which commonly owned (or not owned, if you prefer) finite resources are encouraged to be used inefficently if they are not regulated. This is the basis for environmental regulations (the air belongs to all of us). Finally, some situations just require a set of common rules - which specific rules exist is not as important as the fact that there are common rules. The rules of right-of-way in maritime law is a good example of this.
Government-provided services are merely the result of the recognition that some services can be more efficiently provided by large groups of people pooling resources. Common defense, police, fire protection, roads are examples of these. Frankly, I would require separate, specific proof for each of these types of services before agreeing that they could be provided for more efficiently via pure capitalism.
Wealth distribution is far more controversial. At minimum, it means that people with more resources should contribute more to the common services. It can also mean providing services only for those deemed to need them. For example, health care for the poor. I think each of these needs to be debated separately and priotiized with other government services in creating budgets.
In all of this, people will vary widely on the specifics. But Robes, if your going to call for the widespread alteration of the current economic system, it behooves you to give more than two sentence assertions that things would be provided better under a pure capitalist system. Show us how roads could be privatized, or some other service commonly accepted as the proper role of government. Then people could understand what it is your actually advocating.
posted
This trickle down thing with the tax cuts. What gets me is the 'investment' incentive? Thats a bunch of BULL!!! Every penny spent on investing is already taken off the taxes through loopholes. Every penny thats invested is returned by the gov't ANYway. So they get money twice. And even 3 times. So Robe, you say that giving money to the poor is wrong? So is giving money to the Rich. Whats wrong for the goose is also wrong for the gander. Instead of giving money to ANYone, why not make the gov't more efficient in its workings and cut the pork and waste and then you'd see better tax levels across the board. For EVERYone
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every penny spent on investing is already taken off the taxes through loopholes.
Would you mind taking a look at my taxes and show how the money I've invested can avoid taxation? 'Cause that ain't the case for most people in the world.
posted
Are you investing in the Market or are you investing in buildings, machinery, equipment etc. Those things ARE tax deductable. Investing in the Market isn't deductable up to a point. Cars, trucks stuff being used and bought for the company are tax write-offs. Been there, Done that a number of years ago. Including milage on said vehicles. Thats tax deductable. Why do you think some folks have gotten a bit up in arms about some flks taking advantage of the loopholes to get 80k Hummers for less than your average family car? Thanks for playing. Try again.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
It appears that you favor a free market economy completely free from government intervention. What are your views regarding antitrust laws and illegal monopolies?
I apologize if you have addressed this before, but I did a search (Robespierre, monopoly(ies)) and did not see anything.
In real estate terms, what are your views regarding zoning laws. Beyond the minimum safety regulations, should the government have the right to tell land owners what they can or cannot build on their property?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you investing in the Market or are you investing in buildings, machinery, equipment etc. Those things ARE tax deductable. Investing in the Market isn't deductable up to a point. Cars, trucks stuff being used and bought for the company are tax write-offs. Been there, Done that a number of years ago. Including milage on said vehicles. Thats tax deductable. Why do you think some folks have gotten a bit up in arms about some flks taking advantage of the loopholes to get 80k Hummers for less than your average family car? Thanks for playing. Try again.
I ran a business for 11 years. There are some loopholes, but in general it's almost impossible to deduct something more than once in its lifetime. And generally capital investments have to be depreciated over time - in my business, a far longer time than the life of the asset.
Just heard on NPR that most of the tech jobs going to India are helpdesk-type positions. However, the number of mid- to senior- level technical jobs available in the US increased last year.
So, get that education, get those certs.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If they have been jobless for months, the savings have run out, unemployment has run out, they are not eligible for welfare, and they face being homeless-
----------------------
Who is responsible for this?
You can blame everyone for that. You can blame the person for not being able to get a good education or having job security in the first place (or hey, why not blame the person for being independantly wealthy while we're at it), just as much as you can blame the employer for not wanting to hire someone (choose whatever reason floats your boat).
quote: People do NOT always have the choice to take, or not take a job. -------- False. Unless someone is a slave, or is being coerced with the use of force, there is ALWAYS a choice. Perhaps those making the choice do not like the alternative, but there exists a choice.
So you're saying that if someone is disabled and can't take a job because it would hurt them, it's their fault then (since they're not a slave, and aren't being coerced)?
quote: How can a market driven price be unfair? How do you define fairness?
I can tell you how I, in part, define fairness. I don't think it's fair to send jobs overseas to pay a pittance in wages (imagine how many companies would send jobs overseas if they had to pay comperable wages) to benefit the few.
I can give you a wonderful example. My company has sent many jobs overseas. These jobs pay, on average, less than 1/10th of what they make here. Can you tell me that this is a fair wage for a job?
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those interested in reading up a bit on how the recovery is going, I read a very interesting article on msnbc last night. It talks about how while there are people out there that are making lots of money in the recovery, alot more people are finding it tougher than ever.
While some people will probably say "yeah, that's what you get for living in New York", this same story is repeated across the country, but is never published.
I also have to admit that I was shocked to hear about the unemployment rate among black men - it's estimated to stand at just over 51% in NYC (maybe it's just me, but I find that disturbing).
posted
Face it. For a lot of American's the American Dream is a myth and that is sad. These rich people in NY won't understand until their time to be poor comes...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a lot of American's the American Dream is a myth and that is sad.
It is sad that some people don't believe that they can make their lives better through hard work and perseverance. . . kind of a self-fulfilling attitude.
[ March 15, 2004, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
People DO believe that. Until they actually sit down and work hard and still get nowhere... Until every cent in their paycheck goes towards bills and unexpected expenses. It isn't true. You can go to college, work extremely hard and still end up at a dead end job doing something that you hate because you have no choice. Even if you make all the right decisions. All this talk about you can do whatever you want if you work hard enough is pure unsympathetic bunk.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All this talk about you can do whatever you want if you work hard enough is pure unsympathetic bunk.
No, it isn't.
America is STILL the great land of opportunity. There are very few (secular) ideals that I believe in but America as the place where the little guy can still make it big is one of them.
Did you think I was unsympathetic? Hardly. I'm all about giving financial assistance to those just starting out. And I love the idea of giving businesses tax rebates for human investment capital-- tax breaks for employee education, in other words.
America does have a problem with corporate and political corruption-- but the heart of the country is still with the common man. I may be idealistic and a trifle day-dreamy-- but I've seen the flip side, countries where you cannot get a job unless you're a citizen, and cannot become a citizen because (suprise) you weren't born there.
I'm good friends with a number of political dissidents from Africa and from the Phillipines-- and they still dream in American. Despite all their disagreements with our foreign policy, our way of life, our culture-- America is the land of opportunity still.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, that's why we must work hard to make America live up to those ideas. It can't just be an empty slogan.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have nothing of political worth to add to this thread, but I just have to say that the title has made me giggle like heck. Thank you for that.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In a country where K-12 education is free, college grants and loans are abundant and technology, decent teachers and air-conditioned schools are the norm, a person who doesn't make a decent wage is an idiot."
posted
George W. Bush was born with nothing, almost less than nothing. He was thrust into horrid poverty from day one, and a broken family from day three, but did he just quit?
No! Through hard work, perserverence and a never say quit attitude he went on to be a strong business man who injected great inventions into the world and became President of the United States.
Hard work and Perserverence.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So fugu thinks people who're in thankless jobs due to their "ugh, school sucks so I ain't studyin' no classes" attitude are mentally disabled? Hrm. Could be.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that there are many homeless people out there who have mental problems which prevent them from being able to take advantage of the opportunities out there.
Luckily, most homelessness is transitory, but one of the big reasons for that is our social safety net. Without that net, it can be extraordinarily hard to find a place to live, get to work, and be able to eat while one is busy getting back on one's feet.
Also, a disturbingly large number of the homeless have at least some college education.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's wonderful, but what has it to do with the unemployment rate, really? Are you suggesting that the majority of people making up the rank and file of the unemployed are homeless, too?
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you'll find that, at least, most of the homeless are jobless. Based on statistics I've seen, around 10% of the jobless are homeless. That's quite a lot.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
What my wife was trying to say is that the majority of people who complain about their jobs (or lack thereof) have it within their power to study and improve themselves. If they don't, it's because they chose not to.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angie speaks again: "Illegal immigrants come to the US, no diploma, can't speak English, have no work permit, and after a few years they're building their little houses, bit by bit, trying to make the best of it. Then I stop my truck by a white homeless guy begging food at the expressway and tell him to hop in, I'll pay him $35 for cutting my grass and so forth, and he refuses. Yeah, sounds like mental retardation to me."
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
