Even before the current plan was proposed I was sending them my opinion, I’m still letting them know my opinion, and whether it passes or not I will continue to tell them. Even so, it appears I am just one voice in the multitude.
Well good for you then. Seriously, no snark at all. Most people can’t even be bothered to do that, it seems.
What, do you think they appear on TV for free? Don’t you know that they get MONEY for those TV appearances? You do realize that people who write books get money for doing so? If they can obtain sufficient money from their TV show(s) and book(s) that they don’t have to sell real estate where the fuck is your problem with that? They’re still earning enough money to not need welfare, what the hell difference make HOW they earn a living as long as what they’re doing is legal?
That, and they clearly know how to live on a budget. That doesn’t hurt, either.
Again, as long as their properties were obtained legally what fucking difference does it make? They sold real estate, right? It’s not a stretch to suppose that they acquired these “commercial properties” while they were actively selling real estate. Also, TV rights and book royalties can also be called “property”. Sounds to me like they made some investments over the years that paid off. How can you construe that as anything BUT responsible?
You wanted to spend your money on medical treatments for a dog. They want to spend their money having and raising children. To each their own.
Presumably, Jim worked his ass off for many years and they stuck to a budget. Also, you’re assuming “bad job” = “low paying”. You can make a shit load of money off selling insurance or used cars and still not like the job.
Seems to me the adult Duggars are quite flexible and resourceful. I don’t agree with a lot of what they do, but they manage to do it while being self-supporting.
It could be if their fame died tomorrow Jim would go back to selling cars or insurance and even the Mrs. might start selling real estate again.
No, actually they don’t. MAYBE in your strange land of California they do, but that is NOT the norm elsewhere in the US.
Hope you do the same, even when we take opposite sides of an issue. Wish more people could be bothered to do that.
Well, now you’re a liar too:
Here is a quote wherein you said exactly that: I make a lot more money per year because I provide more value to society. Ipso fucking facto, you said that your value to society is measured by your salary.
And you think I’M the stupid fucking bitch. Look in the mirror today if you want to see one. You can apologize any time you like, but I doubt that you will.
So, ‘motherfuckers’ is just a term of endearment, then?
Yes, I do.
Well, Rand, let’s go ahead and make it all truckers and all tax attorneys, now who does society value more? Do you think the total compensation received by all tax attorneys exceeds the total compensation received by all truckers?
I also love the fact that you mention all of the “barriers to entry” to becoming a tax attorney and then slide right past the fact that your valuation is based, at least in part, on government regulation and interference. You attempt to use free market principles to equate pay to “value” without acknowledging that you do not operate in anything remotely approaching a free market. How much would tax attorneys get paid if anyone could become a tax attorney with the same economic investment that it takes to become a trucker?
As a matter of fact, I just wrote letters to my Congresswoman/Senators and told them that if they didn’t raise your taxes, I’d fuck them in the ass with your dick.
So, either way, you have something to look forward to.
We don’t even have to do math here. Of course the overall value is greater than the average salary. The company that runs the trucks or makes the goods doesn’t employ the trucker simply out of a desire to keep the driver busy. They do it because the profit to be realized by the sale of the trucker’s services, or of the goods in the truck, is greater than what it costs to pay the truck driver.
I don’t know why I’m bothering because you won’t get it, but here goes again. You are talking about some concept called “a person’s value to society.”. You think I am also talking about that concept. But I am not. I am talking about a different concept. I am talking about the value a person provides to society. We are not talking about the same thing. I never said I am of more value to society. I just said I provide more value to society. Also, by “society” I just mean other people.
I don’t know what your concept of a person’s value to society even means, but you seem to take it as a person’s worth as a human being. You think I said I am worth more as a human being because I have a higher salary. Nut I never said that. I just said I provide more value to society (meaning other people) than someone that makes less. Doesn’t mean I think I’m worth more as a human being or anything like that.
I’ve long been a fan of subtle distinctions in semantics, but you’ve got me stumped here. What is the difference between “a persons value to society” and “provides more value to society”? I understand how dummy Rubystreak doesn’t get the subtle distinction, but I’m smart as all git out, and I don’t see it either.
If I may make a little suggestion, you may want to clarify when you’re using your meaning of a word or phrase vs. generally accepted meanings. Just a thought. May make it easier on you. Won’t need to go taking offense whenever someone demonstrates an inability to read your mind and all.
Are you claiming that there is some massive difference, visible for all to see but this stupid fucking bitch, between “a person’s value to society” and “value a person provides to society”? I don’t think so. You’re playing semantic games and contorting yourself to get out of the fact that you equated your value to society with your salary, and when called on it, lashed out and called me some nasty names, and now refuse to admit it or apologize.
No, we are talking about the same thing. I do not agree that you provide more value to society because you make more money. You provide value to the people who pay you. They are not society as a whole. In fact, you provide “value” to a hell of a lot fewer people than I, a police officer, a sanitation worker, or a truck driver, even though we all make less than you. Our services are used by many more people than yours are. The fact that we are not compensated at the same rate does not mean that we provide less value; our clientele does not have as much money as yours. That’s all. Thus, your salary is not an accurate measure of the value you provide to society. I can’t explain it any more clearly than that, though I am absolutely certain you will fail to comprehend this and will dismiss ME as the one being obtuse here.
Oh, it’s obvious to me that you have no idea what my concept of what a person’s value to society means. You seem to think that salary has more than a sliver to do with value. And no, I patently am not talking about a person’s value as a human being. I’m talking about concretely what they provide, in terms of goods and services, to society, not some amorphous quality of human-ness. But I think you’re just twisting about and trying to distance yourself from the statement you yourself made.
I’ll repost it just for fun:
You do not provide more value to society because you have a higher salary. Your value to society, and mine, are based on much more than just what you or I make. There are tangible factors that would also need to be considered, as well as some intangibles. You have not made a compelling case that salary should be the sole measure. In fact, you’ve made no argument at all, just insulted and called names anyone who disagreed with you.
Still waiting for that apology.
Lemme put it to you in dummy-speak: Rand Rover thinks that he provides more value to society because he services rich people, and they can afford to pay him teh big bux. Those of us who provide services to hundreds or thousands of people, regardless of their income level or ability to pay, because our services are essential to the functioning of society as a whole, provide less value to society. How do I know this? He makes more money than we do. Got it now?
Well if our services were truly of value, we’d be getting paid more.
I meant that sarcastically, but I think that’s what he thinks. Suppose it is an interesting point.
It all depends on who values your services. If rich people value your services, or only a few people are providing your service, then you get paid more. If a lot of poor people derive value from your services, or if a lot of people can do your job, you get paid less. I don’t think that salary is the sole measure of your value to society. If that were true, then Lady Gaga and A-Rod would be providing more value than a doctor who is saving lives on a daily basis, or the President of the United States. Of course, maybe Rand Rover thinks that they do. In that case, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
And by his standards, once again, Paris Hilton provides more value to society. Hell – I suspect Perez Hilton provides more value to society then!!!
More than you do, in any case.
RR is one of the characters Mel Brooks played in History of the World Part I. He doesn’t realize he’s the piss boy, holding the piss bucket for Count DeMoney and hoping to become King. The only thing standing between him and his aspirations is the revolting peasants.