Forum Post: What exactly are wages, and do you deserve to keep any of them?
Posted 12 years ago on March 23, 2012, 9:09 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
There seems to be a new push to establish the employer’s right as to how the employee spends what they earn. I feel this is very dangerous, in AZ the state government is considering allowing employers to ask why do you need contraception and fire you if they don’t like the answer. When did we start saying that the employee doesn’t earn their benefits? Since when was it the employer that is “buying” the heath coverage, what is it a gift? This is ridiculous of course the employee earns all the costs of f their employment and the employer is not “buying” the healthcare, the employee is with their labor.
Speaking of what do you earn, why is it outrageous for people to think that the employer, at a minimum should cover the basic costs of providing labor to them. The cost of basic shelter, and bath, some food and a way to get to work, plus a little for the worker should be a minimum,
The rights of workers have been on the decline. It is time to reverse that trend and begin to give workers, the backbone of the US economy, the rights they deserve. Workers need a living wage not a minimum wage; access to health care and no unilateral reductions in medical benefits and pensions for current employees and retirees. Employers should not be able to avoid these benefits by hiring temporary workers or independent contractors. The privacy of employees needs to be vigorously protected. The notorious Taft-Hartley Act that makes it extremely difficult for employees to organize unions needs to be repealed. It has resulted in less than 10% of the private workforce being unionized, the lowest in 60 years and the lowest percentage in the western world. Non-union workers need upgraded rights against the likes of Wal-Mart.
Morning trevor, I like to put it this way collective capital should deal with collective labor, so that balance can be restored, we could actually make this a requirement for conducting interstate commerce.
the privacy of management is my concern
mangement should not have to revel details of their personal heathcare, a very good point matt
but sales, supply and profit should be open books
publicly traded, I would agree, I don't mind some things being close to the vest, but maybe I just don't see the pitfalls with private smaller operations
You're misrepresenting the intention of the Arizona law. While laws often get misused, this one is intended to allow religious organizations with a faith based objection to contraception and abortion to opt out of providing them. It goes a step further though and provides for the woman that needs the pill for a medical condition. Yes it requires them to disclose that condition if they want the medication covered, but all insurance requires your private medical information.
Your technically accurate in saying the money paid in benefits, salary, employer portion of social security is all part of doing business and could be considered the employees money. Unfortunately government doesn't agree with you at present. Perhaps it's a good thing in one way. Couldn't the employers use your semantics to drop the total dollars paid out down to the minimum wage?
Sure if we raise the mininum wage to $20/hr that would fix a number of problems.
I'm not misreperesting the law at all the bill wants to give the empolyer control over how you spend something that you have earned.
You're interpreting how unpaid benefits are actually pay. It does follow logically. Unfortunately the one making the rules and definitions is government. They are not exactly a fountain of logic and refuse to acknowledge your reasoning. They call it and classify it as the employer's money paying for the workers benefits. Until they change you're going to have this first amendment question over abortion and contraceptive services.
Any empolyer can avoid the first admendment problem by simply raises the workers pay enough to cover the premins and then deducted from their checks. Might just cost a little more.
So if I didn't work there the empolyer would pay for my healthcare anyway? I don't think so, that is the very deffintion of earning.
Not sure where you got that idea from. If you don't work at all then you will likely end up on Medicaid, being forced to follow the rules the government sets up because they are the ones seen as paying for coverage.
Your interpretation simply doesn't matter, it doesn't change what everyone else believes or the definitions they operate under.
not yet
"I'm not misreperesting the law at all the bill wants to give the empolyer control over how you spend something that you have earned."
Earned what? health insurance? You only earn it if your employer offers it to you as part of your overall employment benefit package. The employer chooses the type of insurance to make available to you. If you don't like the coverage either pay for your own, try to negotiate with your employer for better coverage, or find a new job.
Just like you only earn a paycheck if your empolyer gives it to you, what's your point?
You have not earned unlimited healthcare unless it was offered to you initially as part of your compensation package.
I understand you may disagree with the healthcare law, I disagree with the Iraq War but that doesn't make either of them go away.
That's a two part question. The answer to the first part is that wages are that part of value created by labor that the boss deigns to give to the workers and of course the working class deserves to keep all of them and more. In a truly just society the workers would have total control over all the value of all the goods and services that they produce and decide collectively how to destribute them.
Thank you for your support against the GOP in their efforts to dictate to the American people what laws, they can or cannot have. The ideal that the employer is morally responsible for how payment to the worker is used by that worker opens a huge can of worms.
It's not just the Republicans. From the perspective of an organized Left in the United States or more accurately, the hope of and for an organized Left, that is, in order for an organized Left to get itself organized, its greatest impediment NOW is by far NOT the Republicans. After all virtually NOBODY who would think of themselves as part of an American Left or a potential American Left would take seriously the notion that the Republican Party is or could be an effective vehicle for social justice, world peace or the organization of the working class or the super exploited.
Unfortunately, the same is not true of the Democratic Party which has, for over 100 years, been the grave yard of every mass movement that has arisen in this nation for justice, social equality and peace, beginning with the Populist movement at the end of the 19th century. Of course, no serious OWS activist would ever consider orienting toward the Republican Party, yet thousand and perhaps tens of thousands of OWS activists are oriented toward the Democratic Party. Some rather cynically see it as the lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers. Unfortunately others actually see it as a genuine vehicle for justice, social equality and peace, while it all the while enforces laws that promote injustice, inequality and American imperialism, the American State and the corporate rule of the 1%
Fortunately no local general assembly of OWS has made any endorsement of either the Republican or Democratic Party nor is any likely to. Probably, someday, OWS should enter the electoral arena, but if it does so, if it is to survive it will have to do so on its own, independently and not by supporting one of the two parties of the 1%. Right now were OWS to enter the electoral arena in any capacity it would only reveal its weakness and not its strength.
Right now our job as OWS activists is to build the movement by building more and more local general assemblies, by helping existing general assemblies to grow, by re-establishing encampments where they have been evicted and by establishing new encampments everywhere until there is an OWS encampment in every community everywhere internationally, not just the United States.
Until then, of course it goes without question, fuck the Republican Party, but also fuck the Democratic Party. Fuck the 1%. Fuck Wall Street. Fuck megacorporations and all the institutions of the 1%. Fuck the state!
What is a real can of worms is the wage system itself. Fuck the wage system. Fuck profits, all profits. Profits are nothing but the theft by the 1% of a huge portion of what the working class produces. There shouldn't even be wages because all wages are are that portion of what we the working class has produced which the 1% hasn't stolen from us and there shouldn't be profits because all profits are are what we the working class has produced that has been stolen from us by the 1%. In a just and democratic society all the value that we the working classes have produced, which would include all the wages, all the profits, all the surplus value would go to us, the working class.
Long live OWS! Long live the Revolution!
Exactly, “Work the Dems” “Vote against the GOP” I think that is exactly what we should be doing as we approach the election we do all we can to defeat the GOP, as you say they are clearly against everything we want to do, after the election we threaten the D’s into doing the right thing, of course if we can’t get rid of some Republicans when they are so clearly against us, then we really can’t do anything so they won’t be listening if we don’t defeat the GOP first.
Fuck the Democratic Party. Fuck the Republican Party. Fuck all the institutions of the 1%. OWS has taken no position on electoral politics, nor, IMHO should it at this stage in its development. Undoubtedly some OWS activists will vote. Of those that do vote probably as many will vote for Jill Stein or some other third party candidate as vote for Obama and the Democrats.
But the main job of OWS is not the 10 minutes that many OWS activists might spend in a voting booth. The main job of OWS is to build OWS, to build more local general assemblies, to grow existing general assemblies, to re-establish evicted occupations and to build new occupations until there is an occupation in every community in the world. Ten minutes spent in a voting booth is no big deal and OWS activists will choose to do that or not as individuals. But all the rest of the time OWS activists spend as OWS activists is a very big deal and any second of that time spent building any of the institutions of the 1%, including especially the Democratic Party, the most significant institution of the 1% out to wreck OWS, is not only time not spent building OWS, it is time spent working against OWS. Fuck all the institutions of the 1% including, especially the Democratic Party, that institution that is more menacing to OWS than any other. Participate in your local general assembly. Build OWS. Up the Revolution!
You forgot one f**k the country; because that's all you want to do.
We can tell the truth, or we can keep on being sheep, the truth is Gore would have been a 100 times better than Bush, now I can't prove that, nor can I prove evolution but I got a brain.
I presume you are an adult. It is curious that even when I give an example you seem incapable of spelling the word fuck correctly. I love America. I love American scenery. I love American cities. I love American culture. I love American films. I love American music. Most of all I love the American people and the American working class which has a proud history of militancy in standing up to the 1% and its institutions. I consider myself 100% American and could not imagine living anywhere else. What I don't have much affinity for is the imperial American state and the institutions that govern it, particularly the two wings of the party of the 1% called the Republican and Democratic Parties.
The tragedy of an incipient American left is that for more than 100 years it has been trapped in the illusion that some how the rule of the Democratic Party is beneficial to its development. Fortunately the growth and development of OWS is breaking through that illusion. I have been to several different OWS encampments and I have not met a single OWS activist who shares such illusions about the Democratic Party or who would orient toward the Democratic Party as an institution that would in any way foster social equality or world peace. It's job, the job of the Democratic Party is to rein in, to cripple the independent power of real movements for justice, social equality and world peace by fostering the illusion that it, the Democratic Party, is an institution for fostering social justice and world peace when in reality it is just one wing of the party of the 1% bent on maintaining the rule of the 1% and American imperial hegemony.
There are even as we speak, institutions of the 1% bent on corralling the incipient power and dignity of OWS in the service of the Democratic Party. Fortunately very few OWS activists take them seriously.
Build OWS! Long live the Revolution.
Sheep like scenery too I suppose, you can keep on dreaming or you can take action people like Santorum give us a chance we may never have again, I know that you are here to make sure we waste it. But this time I think people see through the crap, I can only hope.
I suspect that you have never been to an encampment or even to a local general assembly. There are some OWS activists who will undoubtedly take 10 minutes out of their busy day on Election Day and vote for Democrats, but even for them, I don't know of a single OWS activists anywhere who would plan to put any more energy into electoral activity at this moment in time.
The important thing for every OWS activist I know, including those OWS activists who plan to vote for Democrats, is building OWS and all of them, even those who plan to vote for Democrats, do not see the Democratic Party as a vehicle for justice, social equality or world peace, but only the lesser of two evils. Every OWS activist that I know, even the most moderate of them, sees as the primary responsibility of OWS activists being building OWS, building local general assemblies, growing existing general assemblies, re-establishing evicted occupations and building new occupations everywhere, internationally, not wasting time on strengthening either party of the 1%.
Nor is this merely a matter of what I happen to personally think. These are the views of virtually every OWS activist I have met at over a dozen different local encampments as anyone who spent more than an hour at any encampment would quickly discover.
Social change is up to us, not to the politicians of the 1% regardless of the party to which they belong. Build OWS! Up the Revolution!
What you say may be true of many OWS people, when I talk of defeating the guy who passed SB 1070, I say “we” when in truth there were few OWS people involed, just as with the stuff about Trayvon is not really OWS people those people know who they support come election time and talk about it all year long, what I am saying is that we can be something if we want to be, truth is on our side if we tell it, we may choose not to, or we may choose to. You like to tell us about your day, I’m not that interested, I would like to know more of your thoughts on how we get this done. I know for me I didn’t care if Clinton was faithful, I cared about the policy, I speak often about my thoughts along those lines if you care to read them.
OWS is a tiny, tiny movement and very new, barely out of its infancy. Based on the figures at the Occupy Together site, which I believe are fairly reliable, there are probably around 20,000 OWS activists nationally, that is, people who an encamped or who participate regularly on at least a weekly or monthly basis in a local general assembly.
That said, OWS has already accomplished some remarkable achievements given its small size and short life span. Probably the most important thing it has done is get people up and away from their TVs and computer screens, out in the streets and talking to each other.
Beyond that OWS has energized virtually every other social movement from organized labor to the civil rights movement to the women's movement to the gay rights movement, to the environmental movement to the movement for civil liberties and against police brutality and more. Given its size and age this is really an astonishing contribution and from the point of view of establishing a genuine radical democracy infinitely more important than all the elected Democrats in the world.
There are elements around the edges of OWS, particulary MoveOn and the SEIU that would like to corral OWS totally into the sphere of the Democratic Party. Fortunately, from my point of view, such efforts have been largely unsuccessful.
No organized left is of any significant consequence in this nation to seriously affect the outcome of a bourgeois election and help decide which bourgeois party should rule over us, which bourgeois party is the lesser evil. Certainly the 20,000 OWS activists are not about to affect the outcome of the election.
The most important thing for OWS is to build OWS regardless of what bourgeois part or what bourgeois candidate wins the elections. Are some candidates of the 1% and some parties of the 1% less draconian in their policies toward the vast majority than others? Of course. Does that mean that we should be forced to choose between them. Some people think so. Even some OWS activists think so. But what every OWS activist I know thinks, regardless of what they personally plan to do on Election Day, is that the most important thing that OWS should be doing as a movement is building OWS and not concerning itself on which candidate of the 1% happens to win any given election.
After all, most of the municipal administrations that have evicted OWS encampments are Democratic administrations. And based on FOIA reports these evictions and local police tactics are being advised by the Department of Homeland Security, an agency of the present Democratic Administration, and by the FBI and agency of the Justice Department of this Democratic Administration. Of course the Republican Party is an enemy of OWS, but it does not follow that the Democratic Party is its friend.
The job of OWS is to build OWS. Every OWS activist knows this as there has fortunately been no successful effort anywhere to corral OWS or any local general assembly into an organized effort to help the Democratic Party. Build OWS! Long live the Revolution!
Certainly the more people who care about the movement that are drawn out of politics by your reasoning the movement weakens. Throughout the years every time people wake up and start to see the truth, people come along to lead them off to the Never land of perfection, this is how we got Bush, when I think of the opportunity that was lost to elect the most environmentally friendly person we have ever seen so close at a time when the world desperately needed it, and to see it squandered by people deceived by your sort of insidious lies, breaks my heart.
I am not talking about a never land of perfection. I am talking about how this Democratic Party and this Democratic Administration is treating our movement now and what our movement is actually all about which many erstwhile "supporters" on this forum seem absolutely clueless about. It is THIS Democratic Party and THIS Democratic Administration that is advising local municipal Democratic Administrations in the here and now, not in some "Never land of perfection" using the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to advise existing local Democratic Admnistrations as to exactly how to smash our movement now. Should we seriously support a Party and an Administration and local Democratic Party administrations hell bent on smashing our movement and motivating police departments to beat up my comrades just because the other party of the 1% might do exactly the same thing more efficiently?
I can't see how you have ever been to a single general assembly anywhere or a single encammpment as I have been to several and I know people in several others and I do not know of a single OWS activist who shares your sentiments. You may think they are crazy, but the fact is, if you don't know that, if you don't understand that, you don't know a fucking thing about OWS.
Did you know there is a Republican party in America?
At my GA here in AZ we do, I have been there and everyone I met understands that the GOP is the enemy, but we live in AZ we may just know Republicans better than people in NY.
Is your general assembly taking a position on electoral politics and if so is it reaching out to other local general assemblies in an effort the forge a coordinated effort on the issue?
Of course you may be right, in 2000 the left decided to put Bush in the White House instead of Gore, we may do that again, just depends on how many people listen to you and how many listen to me.
The IS no organized Left in the United States nor has there been since 1918 when the Democratic Wilson Administration and its Justice Department took it upon itself to smash the Socialist Party for its opposition to American imperialism's participation in World War I. What is exciting about OWS is not that it is a mass Left, but it is the incipient beginning of a possible Left, the first in decades.
At this point what constitutes a "Left" in the United States is so inconsequential that it can hardly be blamed for whichever party of the 1% happens to take political power at any given moment.
OWS is tiny. It is a very slender reed upon which to pin our hopes, but it is all we have and for it to orient toward electoral politics in any way at this point in its fragile existence would undoubtedly sound its death knell.
What OWS activists need to do to ensure the survival of OWS and the development of a genuine mass Left in the United States is to build OWS, to build more local general assemblies, to re-establish evicted occupations and to build occupations in every community in the nation. Fuck the 1% and all its institutions and states! Long live OWS! Up the Revolution!
The Greens were large enough in 2000 to give us eight years of Bush, I think OWS might be larger than you think, are you ready to be responsible for eight years of Romney?
In 2000 Ralph Nader got 3 and a half million votes, more votes than any left candidate since the La Follette campaign of 1924. Over 130,000 people volunteered for the Nader campaign, significantly nearly 7 times the number of OWS activists today. That base of 130,000 might have been forged into a new political party, a formative party for a mass party of the left. Unfortunately that opportunity was squandered and most of that 130,000 ended up back in the Democratic camp in 2004, though today I suspect that a substantial number of them are OWS activists.
If one seens the results of the Florida returns as decisive in 2000 then one might as well blame the Socialist Party candidate Dave McReynolds for being the spoiler as Nader since the number of votes McReynolds got in Florida was within the margin of victory.
More important, it was not Gore or the Gore campaign or the Democratic Party that took up the challenge to the Florida results in 2000. It was not even the Nader campaign. The group that challenged the outcome of the Florida elections was the Green Party and the Gore campaign was dragged into that struggle kicking and screaming, so terrified was it of a Constitutional crisis.
This is not unlike the 1960 campaign when Nixon graciously gave the election to Kennedy rather than challenge the gangster tactics used in Illinois to throw the election to Kennedy. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties and their candidates are parties of the 1% and play by the rules of the 1% and will not challenge those rules. Among those rules are that they will do everything in their power, working together and separately to prevent the rise of a mass independent party of the Left in the United States.
I am more about telling truth, than finding blame, the truth is if Nader had done all he could have to help elect Gore, then Gore would have won.
The truth is that if Nader capitulated to what the Democratic Party has become since Jimmy Carter he would not have been the same Ralph Nader who wrote Unsafe At Any Speed and spoke truth to power.
I remember back then when Nader was telling us that the Covair and a Mercedes both had four tires and were just the same.
Wait a minute back then it seems Nader had a brain.
Your hostility to independent political action is matched only by your ignorance of OWS.
I am hostile towards lies.
Normally I do not state my own views so strongly or categorically and I think I would not have been so inclined to do so were you not so categorical in your own views. While it's not an official OWS position and is unlikely to become one, a very substantial number of OWS activists will undoubtedly vote Democratic in the next election. What is important with regard to their orientation toward OWS is that they don't demand or expect other OWS activists to share their views and everybody pretty much has a live and let live attitude toward issues on which there is no consensus. Unfortunately I do not find the same spirit of cooperation on this forum. Personally I think it would be considerably more productive to find issues on which there is a broad consensus within the movement and bring them back for consideration to our local general assemblies and working groups.
The extent to which anybody will care about OWS, next year will depend on how many GOP lose their seats, just as the TEA party is carried by the dems that lost theirs, you consistantly enspose one opinion only that "they are both the same" lies got us here and lies will keep us here if we listen to them.
What you say about OWS may be true, though I do not think so. The grievances which OWS addresses in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City are real and I believe systemic, not cyclical. Because they are systemic they are unlikely to go away and if the grievances that gave rise to OWS do not go away then, short of the establishment of an actual police state, it is unlikely too that OWS will disappear. It may ebb and flow in size and strength, but I do not think it will disappear.
It is very peculiar to me that people on this forum who are so supportive of the Democratic Party have apparently never been to a single general assembly or encampment anywhere. If they had they would realize just how marginal their own views are within the activist base of OWS.
I have heard rumors that OWS was controlled by a small group of "activists" and not really about bringing forth the best ideas, so you are saying you have first hand knowledge of these shanghais.
I thought this forum was about OWS, and consistent with the values of OWS. Your question indicates a conscious lack of understanding of what OWS is all about. Why don't you just go to your closest local general assembly and find out. Of course there have been problems with the decision making processes of OWS. That would be true of any movement. It is especially true of OWS because it is questioning everything, including the efficacy of classical parliamentary procedure.
The Arizona bill - contrary to what you have written here Factsrfun - states that a Religious Employer can submit an affidavit to the Insurance Provider stating that they will not pay for Contraceptive Coverage.
The Bill explicitly states that contraceptives prescribed for medical reasons other than to prevent conception are NOT to be excluded from coverage.
The woman must pay for the contraceptive that was prescribed - lets say for ovarian or uterine cysts - and then submit a claim for reimbursement. That claim goes to the insurance company - NOT the employer.
Read the bill.
" This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider with prescriptive authority for medical indications other than to prevent an unintended pregnancy for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. An insurer, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the policy may state religious beliefs in its affidavit that require the insured to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the insurer along with evidence that the prescription is for a noncontraceptive purpose not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection."
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625h.htm&Session_ID=107
I do understand that the bill mostly just gives the employer control over your bedroom.
Its a way to save money. if your are using for bedroom purposes you can evaluate if it is really what you want like the rest of us.
“[-] 0 points by Rebdem (33) 1 hour ago well im sorry i don't believe in parties but i still think getting rid of one is not a realistic goal and nor should be a goal of this movement ↥like ↧dislike permalink “
What do you believe in, the tooth fairy?
no i believe in people when i have voted i voted for a person who i most relate to on issues. I know no parties
Well I live in AZ and here and pretty much everywhere I look it is clear to me that the Republican Party stands frimly against everything OWS stands for, so for me it's not that hard to choose, may I ask have you ever found a Republican that stands with us?
Well ok then vote according how you feel and ill vote how ill feel. Im for a free market so ill vote for that issue
Sounds nice, but there's no such thing as a "free market", so you would be voting for an illusion.
good morning shooz, hey if you haven't seen this would you take a look, it won't get the coverage Trayvon will, but I think we should look at it:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/federal-government-uses-patriot-act-to-confine-a-1/
Thanks facts. I just commented on the thread.
I'm just astounded at how many still believe in the myth of "free markets".
Not with government involved in it there not. But hey that is my choice i respect it
Government has nothing to do with it.
It's got nothing to do with "choice".
It's simply an illusion. There is no such thing as a "free market".
You've been lied to if you believe that.
i'm sorry i'm not going to argue with you over this.
As an American i a can vote for who ever i want and so can you. Im going to vote for a person that reestablish a better capitalistic system that's my choice
Then it's you who has accepted an illusion, with no questions asked.
Tell me, do you also believe that there is a magical, mystical invisible hand, that controls the illusion of the free market?
again not looking for an argument
i accept the fact that we have a system that is based on a general trader commerce and a consumer driven market. Its not fully there but that has something to do with the government influence and the FED
The magical hand is consumers they push the market to where they want it to go. For example look at green power and energy we a driving the market to fit our needs to have cleaner society it happens naturally. It is also why we don't have certain things anymore. The market will constantly battles it self into a new equilibrium everyday. Free enterprise will always turn up eventually because it is one of the most natural ways of dealing with things. It is the one that has the highest potential for equal like 99% opportunity not forced equality.
So yes i realize that our systems not perfect but nothing has come close to beating it yet so until them i say we should stick to it.
Your entire statement is belied by the price of gas.
I have no problem accepting the fact that commerce is market driven.
I have a problem with the belief that any market can be a "free market".
That's the illusion.
Oil is a market driven thing every day there is less of it so it becomes more valuable but the need is rising hence the prices climbing. Oil is used in almost all of products and if not used in the product it is used to make the product. So oil is driven by the market. Plus factor in the travel cost and production cost it is expensive. That s another reason we want to move away from it. something abundant like helium or hydrogen could work as a substitute
well its true we have a free market take it for what it is. Again though the government has been play god with it for the last couple of years deciding winners and losers.
and dam you got your argument
not sure what you are trying to say
By not paying they are saving money. Then if you are for birth control you should evaluate if you really need it
I suppose they would save even more if they paid nothing at all, just gave the workers a little food maybe, but fortunately the law does not allow that.
stop being so radical it makes it very annoying to bounce ideas off of you. Don't view people who want to make a profit as evil. Making the profit is the point of almost every business
Where did I say I had anything against making a profit?
I do think the full cost of providing the labor, plus a little for the worker to keep is the least anyone should be allowed to pay anyone else to do a job, if you can't cover that and make a profit, you don't have a business, you have a job, which one would hope you are good at.
in you last comment it was a little biased against owners.
I think full livable wages should be done but profits must also be made
That is the difference between a business person and someone who is not a business person. A business person can pay a living wage and make a profit, for others we have jobs, with any luck that is. People seem to think that just because they have money, they are entitled to profit, that’s not how it’s suppose to work, that’s why it’s called risk. The people with money have paid off the rule makers so that they don’t have to be good to make a profit, they can get it by paying low wages and passing the cost of that to tax payers, which end up being workers, the biggest slice of income tax to the feds is from the 15% bracket.
Yes that's why we must fix government by getting rid of certain things and then rebuild the system how it was suppose to be
i agree with ya
I think if we can get rid of the GOP then slpit the dems into we got a chance, but we have to destory the GOP first.
No not at all we need people with all ideas. But you were right only 50% we need to get rid of the party system because how each every part of the country views certain issues is different than others so to get rid of party just because you don't like it is very childish. People have the right to their opinions and even if you got rid of it the people would still vote for who they want because that is right.
Don't be a sheep and think "they are all the same" that's exactly what the 1% want you to think.
Purge the GOP and be free!
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step....getting rid of the GOP
well im sorry i don't believe in parties but i still think getting rid of one is not a realistic goal and nor should be a goal of this movement
No we do not need the ideal that the 1% have to be protected from any tax increase at any cost, the 1% have been getting their way too long, we have to get rid of all the elected GOP, we can listen to them all we want but it's crazy to let them shut down the government to protect their rich buddies.
Sorry man that's a bad view to have be open minded don't fall into the trap of parties
See now that is what is wrong with most thinking today.
That business prime goal is to make money to make profits.
I was raised to believe that a business through sound practice and good relations to the consumer provided a beneficial product to society. And that coupled with good judgement would see a business also successful financially.
Wow how disillusioning to find out that the true purpose of business is to satisfy greed that it does not matter what you make.
Huh.
That's a pretty piss poor view to take.
hey DK i wasn't talking to you and yes to make a profit is the sole purpose of starting a business. yes creating ideas and spread a cool product is a good thing but you must make a profit to keep that going and allowing it to grow
Open forum. Anyone can join a conversation. You want privacy have your discussion by PM.
If everyone is in it for the money then they have a starved soul. Which would make sense given today's economy and environment.
Wonder twin powers - Blinders removed! Shazam.
If your not in it for the money you can make it a non profit business but even those businesses have to make a profit for cushion money
Well this bill has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with religious fanaticism. Last time I checked this was Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy Vatican.
and your point being that working conditions have notthing to do with OWS
it seems many on here disagree with you
pls feel free to disagree. i wont get a nobel prize if all of u agreed with me and neither would i lose a penny if u disagreed.
and even after we take over it won't cost you anything, you can pay the taxes with the money you save not buying politicans
I am buying politicians? What?
oh you just work for those guys
On a conceptual level, there is no reason why an employer does not have the authority to determine exactly what he will offer to any of his employees. The resources he offers are, after all, his resources and he can choose to offer them to anyone he pleases in exchange for what they are willing to give in return (their labor).
As far as authority goes the federal government that is the authority in this case.
And you have no problem with the employer determining how those earnings are used, I do, I believe when you have earned something with your labor your boss no longer gets to tell you how to apply what you have earned,
If he wants to make it a gift and give me healthcare for not working, cool that's a compromise I can live with, any healthcare coverage which is freely given without any expectation of anything including labor in return, can be comprised of whatever the giver wishes, but if you make somebody work for it, it belongs to them
If you earn something, it's yours. No one else can tell you what to do or not do with it. We are not in disagreement here and I don't know where you got the idea that I thought differently.
Money History 101 change your world view! Before you read another twisted history book look at this chronological video its looooooong however it presents 6000 years in less than 5 hours! Check this out! Want your mind BLOWN? Watch this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd1Twnoq-Dw&context=C4c3e720ADvjVQa1PpcFNKbTWD3Ikp24l0EMRw-h3BJ2D0Tb-TBzE=
This one is only ten minutes give it a try
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0
What exactly are profits and does the boss deserve to keep any of them?
Profits are something earned during negating with your customers, something there would be a lot more of if people were paid decent wages.
Marx says profits are what the capitalists steal from the workers.
I've never read any Marx, I am surprised that you’re a fan, given how much you support the 1% and all.
Gentlemen - above, below and beyond, for your information :
http://www.marxists.org/ ,
http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/ &
http://bilderbergconferences.com/ !!!
The final link is NOT the non sequitur that it may appear to be !!
fiat lux ...
Evening shadz, thanks for stopping by I will take a look, never know what one may learn , if you open your mind a bit.
:-) & also 'fyi' : "The Ascendence of Sociopaths in US Governance", by Doug Casey ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30892.htm .
e tenebris ...
There are other papers talking about the tendency of sociopaths doing very well in corporate America. A book a while back made the case that about 5% of the population are sociopaths, it’s genetic and so can be predicated pretty well as far as the numbers. I had a close friend for a number of years who was a sociopath, it taught me a great deal about the persona, (BTW people who like sex enough to grab a bit in the back room are not sociopaths) Bush on the other hand...
I took some corporate ethics classes , yeah they have those, and when you study it, it seems if corporations are people they are diffidently sociopaths.
[Removed]
What evidence do you have from anything I have contributed to this forum that I am in any sense supportive of the 1%? I am 69 years old and I have been a revolutionary socialist for 48 years. I have participated in virtually every social movement that has arisen in this nation in the past 50 years. I was at Zuccotti Park on September 17 and again on March 17 and several dozen times in between. I've also visited half a dozen other occupations. I consider myself a part time occupier and were it not for health and work considerations I would occupy more often. Again what evidence do you have that I am in any sense a supporter of the 1%? Because I oppose the Democratic Party as a party of the 1%? So does every other revolutionary socialist and anarchist I know, including most of the key activists in OWS.
I looked at a dozen of your posts and could not find one concerning the plight of the 99%, you seemed very focused on conspiracy, I see nothing in your writings that would indicate you want to address the economic disparity in our society.
As in life one can be judged by what they do, on a forum one may be judge by what they say, you seem very committed to keeping OWS from taking effective action.
Where do you see anything in any of my posting about conspiracy? Personally I think conspiracy theory is nuts. I don't think it adds anything to the public discourse and tends to distract people from serious thought regarding how the world works and how we can intervene in it.
I have, for most of my adult life, been a union activist, occasionally as a local officer or staffer, but mostly as a rank and filer. There is much wrong with the American labor movement, but that said, I do not know of any other institution in American society that more consistently addresses the issue of economic inequality.
I have been fairly active in OWS from the beginning, more than most, not as much as many. I am completely supportive of OWS and of its perspectives as articulated in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City. That said, I do believe that the decision making processes of OWS leave much to be desired. Beyond that, unless one is in a position to regularly attend general assemblies and participate regularly in at least one working group, which I have not been able to do owing to work and health considerations, I do not think there is a whole lot that an individual can do to move OWS in any direction. In my experience the most that an individual with limited time can do is support particular actions of OWS which I have done on every occasion I was able (including being chased all over Manhattan by the NYPD last Saturday night). I have always felt rather embarrassed and self abnegating regarding my relatively limited participation in OWS. Nevertheless, every time I have gone to Zuccotti Park or another occupation, more active participants have always been most grateful for even the limited amount of participation that I have been able to engage in.
I am not sure what I may have said on this forum that would indicate that I want to prevent OWS from taking effective action in any way, but I would happy to discuss that if it could be pointed out to me more specifically.
I believe that OWS is the greatest social movement to arise in this nation in my nearly 50 years of activism. It has very clearly gotten people up and away from their tv sets and computers, out in the streets and talking to each other. It has energized every other social movement including labor, civil rights, the women's movement, the gay rights movement, the environmental movement and every other social movement. I am completely supportive of the efforts of OWS. I do not know how I could be more supportive, though if it were pointed out to me I would certainly make efforts in that direction.
As I said I looked at a dozen or so post I didn't see any that spoke in support of unions or reflected the kind of insight one would often develop in that sort of work, if you would like to send the link to a thread you feel would show the true you, I will read it, I am surprised that you didn’t send several with this comment, that seems odd doesn’t it?
Aside from one or two instances of intentional and obvious irony I'd say everything I write is the "true me." I've always supported democratic unionism and as such groups such as Labor Notes and the Association for Union Democracy, so I'm often critical of the labor bureaucracy, but never of organized labor as an institution.
I'd offer the same challenge to you. Show me a single note that I have written anywhere than indicates that I am hostile to any mass movement either current or historical. I've always been supportive of the labor movement and I'm trained in labor history, so I know something about its strengths and its flaws both contemporary and historically. I've been active in the peace movement since the days of the Viet Nam War. I'm a member of the Society of Friends and of the War Resisters League.
I am firmly committed to democracy as I understand it. In my view, to the extent that a mass left has failed in the United States it is essentially a failure of democracy within the movement itself. While I advocate solidarity and a militant movement, I have always been an opponent of authoritarian and antidemocratic trends within the movement. I've also always opposed moderating trends within the movement, especially those tendencies which would tend to keep the movement beholden to the Democratic Party and its candidates.
Obviously there are points of debate here. The vast majority of people involved in social movements tend to be supportive of the Democratic Party, though that is not true of a substantial number of revolutionaries who consistently argue for independent political action on the part of the movement and for the ultimate formation of a mass party of labor. I count myself among the latter group. Obviously there is room for debate and discussion here, but that is what it is, a debate and discussion, not grounds for wrecking the movement or reading one or another tendency out of the movement. The same is true of authoritarian tendencies and currents within the movement. Some movement activists are indifferent to this. Other movement activists are actually supportive of such currents. For myself and my comrades in the movement with whom I most closely identify, we oppose such tendencies. Again, none of this delegitimizes or ought to delegitimize any tendency within the movement. It is an ongoing debate and discussion, a debate and discussion that has been going on within the tiny American left for decades.
I am currently semi-retired but I have never made more than $30,000 a year. I do not simply sympathize and empathize with the poor and exploited. I am a part of them.
I would be happy to discuss and/or debate any of the points above with which you disagree or find problematic or believe, in any way constitutes hostility to mass social movements or the cause of world peace, democracy and social justice or that is even merely indifferent to such values and goals. Or point out to me concretely any single message that I have ever sent which to you indicates my hostility or even mere indifference to mass movements or to the causes of social justice, democracy and world peace.
so many words and not one about wealth inequality...
Are you active at any occupation? The reason I ask is that I have never been subjected to such suspicion or mean spiritedness at any of the several occupations I have visited or participated in. I am considerably older than the average OWS activist and in virtually every instance I have been warmly greeted and shown considerable respect (a lot more than I think I truly deserve) for my life long activity in social movements.
In contrast, I find a lot more meanspirtedness on this forum. In my experience that is true of e-mail correspondence in general, especially between people who have never met, which is one of many reasons why physical, in the flesh, occupations are so essential to the movement.
Huh? If a stated and explicit commitment to mass social movements, to the labor movement, to the civil rights movement, to OWS and for that matter even to the peace movement isn't about the maldistribution of wealth, what is?
I stated above that I personally have never made more than $30,000 and seldom that and most of my friends make less than that. Does that not qualify as a word "about wealth inequality?"
I'm looking for your thoughts not your diary.
What concepts concerning wealth inequality has your long years of fighting helped you to develop? I do not care how you spend your days or what you have done, what do you think?
Hum, that's interesting. The German revolutionary Rosa Luxemberg postulated that the revolution was an endless series of defeats followed by one victory and that we were all standing on the shoulders of giants from previous generations.
I've been in more wage disputes than I can count and I'd have to admit that absent a fundamental transformation of social relations we are always fighting a rear guard action with that sort of thing.
I don't claim to understand economics very well, thou I've been a Marxist for virtually all of my adult life and as such subscribe to the labor theory of value, though I frankly find some of its concepts rather mirky.
I guess I really do care how people spend their days. Marx said that an inch of real movement was worth all the theory in the world and I very much agree with that, that the struggle for a more egalitarian society is infinitely more important than having the right theory to explain the nature of inequality and how to get out of it. Of course that's just my take based on my life experience.
Odd that you would start off with such concern for profits, when you started here.
points by RedJazz43 (2532) 2 days ago "What exactly are profits and does the boss deserve to keep any of them?"
Would not have thought you a fan of Marx would read my thoughts on wages and concern himself immediately with the profits of the employer, but as you have pointed out, thinking not so much your thing.
[Removed]
Yep. He is a wily old (?) bastard. I tend to let others find the subtle poison in his comments. I confronted him a while back. Thought I made it a pretty clear case. But I am not going to waste my time chasing it down. If you read enough of it's shit it becomes apparent all by itself.
Good eye.
Good morning DKA, I had figured that a number of people had set out their case with this guy, he's been chasiong me around for a bit, I like to see what they're saying sometimes helps me see things a different way, this AM i was thinking about something i have thought a long time, there are three kinds of people in America, evil, uninformed, and liberals, we can't do anything about the evil ones.
Morning factsrfun, Now that you have begun a confrontation stage be prepared for the mystified wondering what it is that you see that he does not. He runs quite a long song and dance. Most of it very repetitive. I have in the past suggested it drop the verbosity and keep to short concise statements of support to avoid being misconstrued. Basically it's a waste of time.
Yep all you can do with the evil ones is continue to point them out for the benefit of others.
True, but hey he put me over 80 in under 24 hours, and I want a lot of people to see this one, this one matters I think.
Yes it can be helpful in that way. Keeping a post in good view. As long as people look at the post and don't get caught-up in a running confrontation. Now if the confrontation clearly is in support of the post content and the other commenter is attacking that is easy to see and follow. But if the confrontation goes off subject then it is muddying the water and the attack is partially successful in that it drew attention away from the subject.
no you make a good point about wandering from subject, the concept that any of these trolls can look good is one I am working to dispel I think truth makes them look silly, this idea that people own what they earn is really ticking them off, i've had "vote for third party" guys when we were talking about that go right after this ideal, they can't stand it.
Yes it is a gift. According to freewriterguy, it's charity !
To hear some talk about it, it seems so.
Some great points, I agree.
thank you...spread the word...
word
I stand with the Wobblies. Abolish the wage system.
What do they mean by abolish the wage system? I couldn't find anything on their wikipedia page or website.
Do they mean allocate total national income democratically instead of through the market like what I advocate here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/1-replace-capitalism-with-democracy/
The current conservative social agenda is to comodify virtually everything. The Democrats really have no answer to this. What I am suggesting is exactly the opposite, the de-comodification of everything.
A long discussion of this would be inappropriate on a forum like this. My suggestion would be to start by going to the web site of the Industrial Workers of the World. Then perhaps to a good university library and checking out a could of books on the history of the anarcho-syndicalist discourse.
It's not about markets at all. In fact it's about a post market, post capitalist social order. Most so-called "socialist" governments have really not been socialist at all, but really only a form of managed or state capitalism.
living off the land like a caveman...hmmm paradise...
A post capitalist social order does not necessarily suggest going backward. Depending on the nature of the social forces fighting for it, it could mean going forward toward the cooperative commonwealth.
Maybe, or a breakdown in the current order could be a return to the law of the jungle.
Of course there is always the problem of the mutual destruction of the contending forces, but just because that is a possible outcome is no reason not to struggle for peace, justice, love, brotherhood, solidarity and a better world.
Post capitalism will be a refreshing improvement.
Lets see. The malls are full of shoppers, families are going on spring break, Ipads are flying off the shelves, Peyton Manning and Tim Tebow generate far more interest than hippies shitting in a park, March Madness is full bloom, sports bars are hopping, America may now have overtaken Saudi Arabia in amount of recoverable oil!!!, people are going rock climbing and white water rafting, going to Disneyland in record numbers.
These folks should be miserable with all the suffering OWS is fighting. Not!!! :))))))
How many foreclosures were there ...?
Sorry but foreclosures are a very good thing.
lol. You trolls are funny !
A numbskull like you wouldnt understand. Only 50% of the population should own homes. Driving down the cost of housing benefits everyone.
Lolololol.
I know you are not interested in facts and are only interested in kicking people while they are down and supporting an unfair and unjust economic system, but there is enough land, stone and wood to put everyone in 5,000 square foot mansions on their own 1 acre estates.
But thats not good for society. Home ownership should never exceed 60% in a vibrant economy. Of course an economics doofus like you wouldnt know that. I destroyed, no, more like scorched earth incinerated your $115000/$460000 birdbrained scheme and I will prove the fallacy of home ownership, if you like.
That's like saying slavery is good and linking to the profits of the slaveholders as proof. There were plenty of people who argued that we must maintain slavery or else the economy of the South will collapse, negatively affecting everyone including the slaves.
Demonstrating that home ownership may not work for people who are struggling financially is not an excuse to continue to allow financial struggle and prevent people from owning their own home.
A more fair allocation of income will raise the incomes enough to end financial struggle for everyone. Everyone would have plenty of income to afford their own home if that is what they choose to do.
"Notice the countries at the top? Ireland, Spain, Italy?"
Since you showed you cannot grasp grade school math, I don' expect you to understand statistics. But they were not the only countries at the top of that list, so there was no correlation. But even if there was correlation, correlation does not mean causation.
At what point do you realize that you are being taken advantage of? You don't understand simple facts about the world and the people who are ripping you off and keeping you poor are using your ignorance to take advantage of you. You are their useful idiot.
If you want to expand your public record of stupidity, go ahead and explain why you think only 40% deserve to own their own home. You have already shown that you don't understand the difference between mean and median or household and worker, what GDP is and simple, grade school arithmetic. So we will just add this to the long list of things you are clueless about.
Like clubbing baby seals.
http://economics21.org/blog/too-much-homeownership-good-thing
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/03/10/080310ta_talk_surowiecki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
Notice the countries at the top? Ireland, Spain, Italy?
Smash, ouch, smash, ooh, smash again. You and FOA are baby seals, I am the baby seal clubber. Pick up your shattered skulls, they are messy and bleeding.
[Removed]
It could be argued that all those things could be achieved if people took an informed active part in the current system. If you still have an indifferent and ignorant electorate you'll have the same problems with similar levels of corruption, just under new management.
Since all power in society comes from your income, if you had a law that limits differences in income to only what was necessary for income to be an effective incentive in getting people to do hard work and give their maximum effort and the final allocation of income had to be democratically approved by the workers directly, that system would never turn into the current system.
You can't get laws initiated when your electorate refuses to leave their reality shows long enough to learn what is involved with them. Add to that a blind fear of anything that contains a hint of socialism and a government with an incredibly bad record of managing things. Most don't want government regulating aspects of life like your potential income.
They don't care because they don't have an opportunity to vote on anything meaningful. They have the choice between 2 candidates with only slightly different ideas who get virtually nothing done when elected.
A national union of workers which raises their income to at least $115k or $230k depending on job, reduces their week to 20 hours, gives them access to a 0% mortgage and gives them other benefits is something most workers would be interested in since 95% will never make more than that without a union.
The 23 million people who work for the government would take offense at your incorrect claim that they don't know how to manage something.
Exactly people don't care. They'll vote for someone that offers the best pile of free stuff, as long as their told someone else will pay for it. We've got the government we deserve it reflects an entitled greedy people. It could be communist, representative republic, anarchist socialist, doesn't matter. When your people don't care it all turns out the same, the few controlling the many.
Big organizations end up duplicating things, get locked into procedure, and are wasteful. Government just happens to be the largest of large organizations. Government workers may be offended but everyone I've ever talked to has horror stories of inflexibility,waste, and mismanagement.
Your comment doesn't make sense. You are contradicting yourself. Do they not care about voting or do they vote for free stuff? Do they vote in their own greedy, self-interest or do they vote to concentrate power?
My point is that if people had the opportunity to vote directly for something meaningful, like the allocation of income, very, very few would not care. And they would vote in their best self-interest which would reduce income inequality so that society worked well for everyone.
Without a concentration of income, you would no longer have a concentration of political power. Society would finally become democratic.
In a nation of over 300 million it is unfortunately both, many don't care about voting and many of those that do vote have no clue what they are voting for. Your typical voter gets his or her information from a few 30 second ads or slogans. Their vote is cast based on emotion, sometimes fear or greed. In 2008 the African American voter turnout was threw the roof, but did they know anything about Obama other then his skin color and catchy slogan?
A pure direct democracy would only work if you could keep your voters educated and engaged in the process. Not every issue is interesting to everyone. This is precisely where the current representative republic has failed. I see no reason to believe people would change and stay involved with a new system.
You'll get participation early on in any issue that holds self interest. We'll all vote more money for us and take it from the corporate execs. Who wants to debate something mundane like potholes, zoning, or sewer maintenance? Just do it cheaply or with someone else's money. The uninteresting nuts and bolts of running a society will fall to people that seek power and that results in corruption.
Your earlier statement that power comes from income isn't quite completely true. Those that seek power are often able to manipulate others well. Nixon, Clinton, and Obama are examples of someone from a poor origin that rose to power.
The only thing people need control over is the allocation of income and the ability to spend their own income.
People will care about sewers if they are paying a much higher price for it than everyone else.
I think you misunderstood my point about power. Obama, Clinton, and Nixon gained power because they were backed by the system that the wealthy put in place. Our culture, what the political center is, law are all shaped by the institutions that the wealthy built to keep their power and the status quo in place.
We live in a neoliberal world and have politicians who all promote neoliberal policies because a neoliberal world benefits the few wealthy at the top, not because it benefits the masses beneath them.
I understood your point about power, what you stated is true most of the time, but many politicians gain power selling themselves to the wealthy. Gaining wealth and joining their ranks in the process.
The idea that all we need control over is our income is a trap. If that's all people are concerned about, you'll turn the future into Huxley's "Brave New World" where we're nothing more then docile well treated sheep. It's as distasteful to me as Orwell's 1984, just a different method of domination.
You are not correct, the opposite is true. Income frees people. The lack of income enslaves people. Your ability to act in this world, your ability to pursue the things that make you happy, your ability to influence the public, depends on your income.
People don't care about income. They care about the things income enables them to do.
Orwell was a democratic socialist. He advocated the same thing I advocate. 1984 was about the perils of totalitarianism and dictatorship. Democracy and a market economy where everyone spends their money how they want is the opposite of 1984.
It could be so argued that the existing system offers a path to peace, justice and universal brotherhood. The contrary could also be argued as has been done since the days of the Constitutional Convention when the most radically democratic elements of the Revolution refused to attend, seeing it as a reactionary gathering.
Non-participation is always an option. Personally I'd rather try to sway some in the majority then sit back and wait for things to fail. Seems to fit my personality better then having no voice in how things are done.
sure eggs and oranges, I ubderstand..
[Removed]
[Removed]
because our fathers conquered this land, and it rightfully belongs to us, we the people, and yet possession of this land has been witheld from my family for several generations now. Until this is answered, there remains a greater obstacle to our freedom than just the employees wages, in regards to the "cost of basic shelter".
We are not really a “land based” economy anymore, wages do matter.
[Removed]
"in AZ the state government is considering allowing employers to ask why do you need contraception and fire you if they don’t like the answer."
Can you quote the language of the bill?
I can refer you to the article, it's in committee, may not get out, but the general theme is all over with some claiming people don't earn what they get.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/is-this-a-good-job-app-question-with-whom-and-how-/
[Removed]
The bottom 97% of workers produce nearly all the wealth and only get a small fraction of the wealth they produce. They all make below average incomes.
The top 3% do very little work and take most of the income.
If the top 3% stopped working, the economy would not miss a beat. If the bottom 97% stopped working, the economy would come to an end.
There is nothing fair about the way we allocate income. Workers get robbed in capitalism. 97% make below the $135k average income. 50% of wage earners are making $110k less than the average income and 50% of all Americans are in or near poverty.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/1-replace-capitalism-with-democracy/#comment-673979
This is mostly the result of collective captital and non-collective labor.
I agree with the collective part.
Socialists have traditionally put society in 2 classes: owners and workers.
But this is not accurate. The 2 classes are those with bargaining power and those without. There are many owners who make less than their employees and there are workers, like baseball players who make $20 million per year, who create more inequality than owners.
If the bottom 97%, who all make a below average income, formed a union, they would have the bargaining power and the unequal distribution of income would come to an end. And with that, most social problems would come to an end.
I agree fair bargaining, would really help a lot.
They can ask is you buy cigarettes and drugs and not hire you if you do.
and that is none of their damn business if we had a single payer healthcare, they couldn't ask those questions, or at least we would have a shot at stopping them
Q: What exactly are wages, and do you deserve to keep any of them?
A: What exactly are stupid distractions, and do you deserve to live after posting one?
Next Question?
Thank you for stopping by.
A question is not an answer.
Especially two questions in one sentence.
The next question is for you.
Have you always had this much trouble asking logical questions?
I already know you have trouble answering them.
[Removed]