• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

George Noory Sucks! - The Definitive Compendium

Started by MV/Liberace!, April 06, 2008, 01:23:02 AM

Can Noory pronounce anything correctly?

No
No

zeebo

Quote from: NoMoreNoory on March 15, 2018, 05:35:01 AM
But I'm surprised you didn't share that the first thing she went to was that she had 'the most fun' with the squirrels, when they told her 'all the ways they get their information.'

Time you shared with us, Zeeb!

We may look like we're just playfully scurrying about, but much of that is an elaborate ruse, to get people used to our presence.  Nothing to see here, just a harmless squirrel chomping a peanut while you're sharing state secrets.

Jojo

Quote from: ItsOver on March 18, 2018, 10:23:22 AM
Please, just stick to cats.
Cats.  The metaphor for criminal.  Cat burglars.  "Fulltime" retail workers are paid so low that many remain on welfare (food stamps, Obamaphone, utility assistance) and payday loans/food bank while rent uses up 50% of their gross income.  Plus, most companies wont actually staff 40 hrs because they dont want to provide family health insurance.  So just getting enough hours is a big deal. 

Some men won't beg or take charity.  And they can't very well take on a second job because retail schedules change weekly "to suit the needs of the business".  Where does that leave them in a crisis?  Casing the nice neighborhoods.  Stealing jewelry and electronics to pawn.  I doubt they even feel bad about it.

Deliberately impoverishing retail employees causes sin in the form of employee theft, employee theft of time on time sheets, shop lifting, burglary, grand auto theft, and robbery.  There is the downward spiral of getting in with "bad friends", and ensuing addiction, domestic violence, and 'roid rage.  Impoverishering full-time employees also endangers police and government employees, as forced poverty helps creates an Us vs Them mentality.

How can a retail worker feel bad about stealing, when each executive is already well paid, already has a retirement plan, plus stock, plus Regence (covers massage, woo hoo), plus is rewarded for driving the company into bankruptcy with ANOTHER BONUS LARGE ENOUGH TO PAY CASH ON THE SPOT, AFTER TAX, FOR A VERY NICE HOME in many counties?  No ones bonus should be large enough to buy a house.  There is something very crooked going on there.

Jojo

Quote from: albrecht on March 16, 2018, 02:44:53 PM
Didn't he once try to convince some old lady there was no more moon or something? The three-headed person deal was so funny he had to repeat it with one head, Walter, dying. And one head being black named Bobo.
He told Elvira to come back without her brothers.  Looks like it could be in the works...

ItsOver

Quote from: zeebo on March 18, 2018, 01:51:23 PM
We may look like we're just playfully scurrying about, but much of that is an elaborate ruse, to get people used to our presence.  Nothing to see here, just a harmless squirrel chomping a peanut while you're sharing state secrets.
Heh, heh, heh.  Nice car. ;)




Jojo

Quote from: Jojo on March 15, 2018, 09:34:08 PM
Chihuahua was obviously beat horribly to the point of PTSD and flashbacks, fear and anger, for having diarrhea at the breeder's.  Why these people would re-traumatize such a scared little tiny pet over and over is abuse.

Either that, or the pet loved someone or some pet that died.  Words that sounded like "die" used to traumatize one of my pets who figured out what it meant.  Like diet, dietary, and a couple other words I forget now.
I don't know why they mock him.  You can see by looking at his expression he is trying to tell them he was treated cruelly.  In part of the video it really sounds like he is talking about it. 

Quote from: Jojo on March 18, 2018, 04:11:53 PM
Cats.  The metaphor for criminal.  Cat burglars.  "Fulltime" retail workers are paid so low that many remain on welfare (food stamps, Obamaphone, utility assistance) and payday loans/food bank while rent uses up 50% of their gross income.  Plus, most companies wont actually staff 40 hrs because they dont want to provide family health insurance.  So just getting enough hours is a big deal. 

Some men won't beg or take charity.  And they can't very well take on a second job because retail schedules change weekly "to suit the needs of the business".  Where does that leave them in a crisis?  Casing the nice neighborhoods.  Stealing jewelry and electronics to pawn.  I doubt they even feel bad about it.

Deliberately impoverishing retail employees causes sin in the form of employee theft, employee theft of time on time sheets, shop lifting, burglary, grand auto theft, and robbery.  There is the downward spiral of getting in with "bad friends", and ensuing addiction, domestic violence, and 'roid rage.  Impoverishering full-time employees also endangers police and government employees, as forced poverty helps creates an Us vs Them mentality.

How can a retail worker feel bad about stealing, when each executive is already well paid, already has a retirement plan, plus stock, plus Regence (covers massage, woo hoo), plus is rewarded for driving the company into bankruptcy with ANOTHER BONUS LARGE ENOUGH TO PAY CASH ON THE SPOT, AFTER TAX, FOR A VERY NICE HOME in many counties?  No ones bonus should be large enough to buy a house.  There is something very crooked going on there.

You make is almost sound like getting an education and making ones self more employable wmight be worth the effort to those people.  Or they could just go to the store next door and get another job there

Of course everyone knows paying attention in class and doing the homework is ''acting white'', skipping school to get high is cool, having babies as a teenager a chance to feel grown up, and so on is a much better idea.  And Corporate America had better wake up to this and start paying people far more than the value of the work they produce. 

After all, when Barry Obama told us ''you didn't build that'', he wasn't just talking about small business owners, he was talking about the work people went through to get an education and develop jobs skills, and corporations who invest the money to produce most of the products and services we want and need.

My question is whatever happened to Sean Penn and Danny Glover.  They had the same mindset as ,say, JoJo and Obama, and were routinely coming back from Venezuela and reporting on the wonders of La Revolución.

We don't hear from them anymore somehow.  I guess we should send someone there for an update ourselves, but that person should probably take their own food and anything else they might need - because there isn't any available down there anymore.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 18, 2018, 07:07:04 PM
You make is almost sound like getting an education and making ones self more employable wmight be worth the effort to those people.  Or they could just go to the store next door and get another job there

Of course everyone knows paying attention in class and doing the homework is ''acting white'', skipping school to get high is cool, having babies as a teenager a chance to feel grown up, and so on is a much better idea.  And Corporate America had better wake up to this and start paying people far more than the value of the work they produce. 

After all, when Barry Obama told us ''you didn't build that'', he wasn't just talking about small business owners, he was talking about the work people went through to get an education and develop jobs skills, and corporations who invest the money to produce most of the products and services we want and need.

Not everyone in this world is professional material and somebody has to work those shit jobs. Be nice if those low-level workers could eat as well or does the CEO need a fifth summer home?

Quote from: Robert on March 18, 2018, 01:34:40 PM
Could be a while.  McCain's still a US senator.

You make a good point. I guess it will get so bad Snorge will be forced to leave, wouldn't want to ruin the reputation by leaving gracefully.

Jojo

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 18, 2018, 07:07:04 PM
You make is almost sound like getting an education and making ones self more employable wmight be worth the effort to those people.  Or they could just go to the store next door and get another job there

Of course everyone knows paying attention in class and doing the homework is ''acting white'', skipping school to get high is cool, having babies as a teenager a chance to feel grown up, and so on is a much better idea.  And Corporate America had better wake up to this and start paying people far more than the value of the work they produce. 

After all, when Barry Obama told us ''you didn't build that'', he wasn't just talking about small business owners, he was talking about the work people went through to get an education and develop jobs skills, and corporations who invest the money to produce most of the products and services we want and need.
You know it's a gig economy.  You know jobs were offshored, and that masses of homeowners lost their homes afterward. You know the pay gap has become obscene due to corporate greed.  Top wages have skyrocketed, while minimum wage has not even doubled in 28 years.

Of course there's nothing wrong with leaders being compensated more.  But according to this scholarly paper, income at the top 1% has soared since 1980.  https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/Piketty-Saez-ZucmanNBER16.pdf.  I don't know about you, but no one I know would describe incomes as "soaring"!  The top 1% controls it all, a few very rich people.  On our backs.  You might think stocking shelves or greeting customers is not worth much, but without those menial (and often difficult) tasks, businesses would just flop.

The employees I'm thinking of aren't in retail.  But they are earning minimum wage.  All have a college degree, and are respectable. All either don't have children or are married.  Some have advanced degrees.  Since race seems to come up a lot in Bellgab, even in your reply, just so you know only one of the minimum wage workers I'm thinking of is a member of an ethnic minority.

For a lot of citizens, the world basically came to an economic end after the 2008 stock market crash, then massive down-sizing, off-shoring, and the eventual foreclosures.  Followed by a new gig economy.

I think leaders should be paid more.  But not a zillion times more.  That is greed stepping all over regular folks.  I know I can't convince you of all my beliefs, but many sources are saying the few rich are getting too, too rich while ordinary people are struggling to just survive.




TigerLily

Quote from: Jojo on March 19, 2018, 12:21:23 AM
You know it's a gig economy.  You know jobs were offshored, and that masses of homeowners lost their homes afterward. You know the pay gap has become obscene due to corporate greed.  Top wages have skyrocketed, while minimum wage has not even doubled in 28 years. ...

Of course there's nothing wrong with leaders being compensated more.  But according to this scholarly paper, income at the top 1% has soared since 1980.  https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/Piketty-Saez-ZucmanNBER16.pdf.  I don't know about you, but no one I know would describe incomes as "soaring"!  The top 1% controls it all, a few very rich people.  On our backs.  ...

1980-1989. Reaganomics, trickle down theory, voodoo economics. The idea of giving all the money to the already super rich in the hopes they might hire more people or pay them more. Never has worked. Just adds to the deficit. And makes the very rich very happy - GNS

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 17, 2018, 11:54:35 PM
All was answered above.

This is the sort of thinking that led to eight years of stagnation under Obama.  ''We'' should have redistributed that money.  ''We'' know best.  That these people couldn't run a hot dog stand apparently makes no difference.

Yes Bolsheviks want to redistribute wealth, hopefully our system will prevent at least some of that. But let's not forget the greedy are worthless pieces of shit and we should call them out at every opportunity.

Quote from: Jojo on March 19, 2018, 12:21:23 AM
You know it's a gig economy.  You know jobs were offshored, and that masses of homeowners lost their homes afterward. You know the pay gap has become obscene due to corporate greed.  Top wages have skyrocketed, while minimum wage has not even doubled in 28 years...

Most of the people who lost their homes should have never been given mortgages in the first place.  The Clinton HUD decided that low income people should be buying houses too, so they lowered Fanny Mae's standards, houses got bid up with these new buyers who didn't have the money to keep making the payments, and the sub-prime boom was on.

Gig economy?  The Obama years of stagnation are over, time to look for a job.  May have to leave Podunk to find one though.

Min wage?  Arbitrary, set by government.  Regardless of what minimum wage is, no one is going to hire someone and pay them more than they are worth, people worth more can find jobs paying more.

Top wages have skyrocketed, because the jobs those people hold are more complex, and fewer people are able to do them.  Our educational system is abysmal - thanks to the educrats - and not enough students take charge and make sure that they get what they need out of school.

Wealth is continually being built.  It's not a zero sum game where some earn more at the expense of others - if the high earners didn't exist, the low earners would still be earning the same pay they are now, if not lower.


Quote from: Sarcastic Plastic on March 18, 2018, 10:15:23 PM
Not everyone in this world is professional material and somebody has to work those shit jobs. Be nice if those low-level workers could eat as well or does the CEO need a fifth summer home?

The people who would be working those jobs are entry level workers - students, part timers, immigrants, and folks who would rather party and simply lack motivation.  Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be careers.

It's not that difficult to get a staff level job at some company and do well, it really isn't.  I don't understand why Corporate America is supposed to support those who don't wish to or truly can't.  I'm not sure why the taxpayers should either.

Quote from: TigerLily on March 19, 2018, 12:40:25 AM
1980-1989. Reaganomics, trickle down theory, voodoo economics. The idea of giving all the money to the already super rich in the hopes they might hire more people or pay them more. Never has worked. Just adds to the deficit. And makes the very rich very happy - GNS

Yeah, the Reagan years were so lousy that he won 49 states in his campaign for reelection, and set the economy on a historically unprecedented growth trajectory (not to mention the foreign policy successes).  His restructuring unleashed investment and freed up the economy, paving the way for the Digital Industrial Revolution - software, hardware, telecommunications, bio-tech, entertainment.

Reagan's accomplishments can't be overstated, and it's embarrassing for you to trot out the BS from the jealous loser Democrats.  Everything in your post is a fake ''fact'' - a dishonest talking point brought to us by the party that gave us the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter, a Party and their media that just could not and would not accept the election of Reagan and refused to acknowledge what had happened right before their eyes.  Sound familiar? 

But keep repeating it, it's right in line with your other posts.

Jojo

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 19, 2018, 01:32:29 AM
Yeah, the Reagan years were so lousy that he won 49 states in his campaign for reelection, and set the economy on an unprecedented growth trajectory.  The change in capital gains tax unleashed investment, and thus the Digital Revolution - computing utilized in nearly everything, software, hardware, telecommunications, bio-tech, entertainment. 

Everything in your post is a fake ''fact'' - a dishonest talking point brought to us by the party that gave us the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter, who just could not and would not accept the election of Reagan and refused to acknowledge what had happened right before their eyes.  Sound familiar? 

But keep repeating it, it's in keeping with your other posts.
That chart is right, though.  It proves that trickle down actually trickled UP!  Forever!

Quote from: Sarcastic Plastic on March 19, 2018, 01:09:15 AM
Yes Bolsheviks want to redistribute wealth, hopefully our system will prevent at least some of that. But let's not forget the greedy are worthless pieces of shit and we should call them out at every opportunity.

I can't think of anyone more greedy than the politicians of both parties.  Constantly demanding more power over us at our expense, more of our hard earned money in taxes. 

Of course the good ol' boy network of corporate boards and corporate execs, lobbyists is disgusting.  Throw in their buddies the lobbyists and the crony capitalist politicians.  And unions leaders, and empire building bureaucrats - wasteful, useless, unresponsive, unaccountable.  Let's include the non-profits in with the rest of the corporations - they are just as greedy when it comes to their own perks, power, and pay.  What about the filthy, dishonest media?  Or the disgusting pigs who run Hollywood?  Or those mis-educating our students?

There are a lot of shitty people running around, it's not limited to the top execs of for-profit corporation.

Quote from: Jojo on March 19, 2018, 02:00:18 AM
That chart is right, though.  It proves that trickle down actually trickled UP!  Forever!

It's grossly misleading.  You didn't take statistics, did you?

Here's what I get from that chart:  people moving through life going thru various stages.  Most people are in each range at some point in their life (0-25% percentile, 26-50% percentile, and so on):

They spend more than they make while in school.  Fresh out of school they struggle at the bottom rung of the ladder, have student loans, car loans, etc, and live paycheck to paycheck.  After that they save to buy a home, begin to raise kids, spend more on cars, vacations, furnishings, etc.   There is a period when they have a little extra and begin saving for their kids college, then send them to college.  It's not until later in life their home values are considerably higher than what they paid, their savings and investments begin to reach a certain point, they earn substantially more, their kids are up and out, and they can save more.

That's a big part of what the chart is showing.  Of course the Socialists and politicians greedy for power would have you believe otherwise.  Those in favor of ever more government would have you believe the chart is a visual portrait of evil, and you need them to fix things.  And as we see with most stats given without proper context, most people don't know what they are looking at when shown a chart or numbers of any kind.

Jojo

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 19, 2018, 01:24:58 AM
The people who would be working those jobs are entry level workers - students, part timers, immigrants, and folks who would rather party and simply lack motivation.  Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be careers.

It's not that difficult to get a staff level job at some company and do well, it really isn't.  I don't understand why Corporate America is supposed to support those who don't wish to or truly can't.  I'm not sure why the taxpayers should either.
There is very little staff, PB.  During downsizing, first I did the work of two people, then three, and by the time downsizing was over, i did the work of four people.  People whose departments NO LONGER EXISTED.

Most call centers are in India.  Secretaries have been replaced by Microsoft Office.  Even little companies aren't even doing their own PAYROLL. There are some staff positions, but things have changed.

Some of the foreclosures were balloon loans, or loans with lenient debt ratios allowed.  But a lot of people were downsized, with reasonable mortgages, and just did not get back to work soon.

My experience is wages are set depending on what the company can afford.  Minimum wage has only gone up $2, yet there is a $14 variance in my hourly rate.  So, clearly my pay is not set according to my worth, but other standards.

You said it yourself when you said if the top earners weren't earning more, the bottom earners wouldn't either.  But that's TL's graph's point exactly:  That the bottom FIFTY percent's wages have been stagnant, while the top 1% is skyrocketing.  The chart she listed is reputable.  I saw it on many websites, although I was unable to "copy" it on this Fire tablet so far.


Quote from: Jojo on March 19, 2018, 02:23:36 AM
There is very little staff, PB.  During downsizing, first I did the work of two people, then three, and by the time downsizing was over, i did the work of four people.  People whose departments NO LONGER EXISTED.

Most call centers are in India.  Secretaries have been replaced by Microsoft Office.  Even little companies aren't even doing their own PAYROLL. There are some staff positions, but things have changed.

Some of the foreclosures were balloon loans, or loans with lenient debt ratios allowed.  But a lot of people were downsized, with reasonable mortgages, and just did not get back to work soon.

My experience is wages are set depending on what the company can afford.  Minimum wage has only gone up $2, yet there is a $14 variance in my hourly rate.  So, clearly my pay is not set according to my worth, but other standards.

You said it yourself when you said if the top earners weren't earning more, the bottom earners wouldn't either.  But that's TL's graph's point exactly:  That the bottom FIFTY percent's wages have been stagnant, while the top 1% is skyrocketing.  The chart she listed is reputable.  I saw it on many websites, although I was unable to "copy" it on this Fire tablet so far.

This is a dynamic economy.  It is finally easier to find a good job now than it has been since the 2008 meltdown. 

Statistics don't really mean anything when it comes to one person - all you need is one good job, and these charts and other long term statistical tables aren't relevant to that.  I don't know where you live, but you may have to move to find one - but right now there are plenty out there. 

I suggest not paying attention to the Democrat gloom and doomers, whose only interest is regaining power - they aren't going to tell you the truth about any of this.  Even the pretend media can't hide the job growth, although they are playing it down for all they're worth.

Jojo

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 19, 2018, 02:07:51 AM
It's grossly misleading.  You didn't take statistics, did you?

Here's what I get from that chart:  people moving through life going thru various stages.  Most people are in each range at some point in their life (0-25% percentile, 26-50% percentile, and so on):

They spend more than they make while in school.  Fresh out of school they struggle at the bottom rung of the ladder, have student loans, car loans, etc, and live paycheck to paycheck.  After that they save to buy a home, begin to raise kids, spend more on cars, vacations, furnishings, etc.   There is a period when they have a little extra and begin saving for their kids college, then send them to college.  It's not until later in life their home values are considerably higher than what they paid, their savings and investments begin to reach a certain point, they earn substantially more, their kids are up and out, and they can save more.

That's a big part of what the chart is showing.  Of course the Socialists and politicians greedy for power would have you believe otherwise.  Those in favor of more government would have you believe the chart is a visual portrait of evil, and you need them to fix things.  And as we see with most stats given without proper context, most people don't know what they are looking at when shown a chart or numbers of any kind.
That is not what the chart says at all.  First of all, newly employed young people also come from wealthy families.  So, in the TOP 50%, and the top 1% of wage earners, there are plenty of young people, and even more who graduate from Harvard and Stanford, usually just because their parents could afford it.  I used to live across from newly weds who received all sorts of income and ceaseless door deliveries from their families.  I also know two sons of business owners who were therefore able to waltz into high paying jobs immediately after graduation.  So plenty of young people are not in the lowest category.

Second, the bottom 50% of American wage earners are not all young and just starting out?  From what I hear, baby boomers are the largesse, and working way past traditional retirement age.  We all hear of the stereotypical WalMart greeter. I meet seniors all the time who are well employed.  A lot of my aquaintences are over responsible people over forty and working in the bottom 50%.

Also, according to the Huff Post in 2014, 47% of women up to age 44 are childless, nor funding any college students!  So, 47% of women don't fit your life stages.

PB, what world do you live in?  First of all, no one "sends" their high school graduates to college.  The son or daughter either works and either pays tuition or finds an employer who pays tuition, or borrows it.  As a child from a very good neighborhood, I worked my way through college myself.  So did everyone I know, except a couple who got full rides or enlisted/or ROTC.

Second of all, many college students attaining degrees for the first time are middle age!  My last two years of college night classes around 1989, only two of us were under 40!  Many women finish their degree after children are older.

It sound so far like women don't fit your road map.  Nor children of rich parents.  Nor working seniors, people who are downsized at midlife, people who lost all in the stock crash of 2008, people injured on the job, disabled people who are regular employees,  middle aged couples who each have to pretty much start over after divorce, citizens burdened with legal issues, victims of ever increasing FEMA disasters, or families who lose a parent in combat or while fighting crime, or other tragedy.

One peer's father (a professional) had been downsized and out of work so long that the son was left here to finish high school while his family moved to a job in California.  A family was therefore separated at a vulnerable time of life of a high school student.  I wonder if they flew in for his graduation.

Airlines profit from families being divided.  The last ten years, I constantly see out of state license plates, everyone is running, especially after Katrina, trying to find a better economy... or working "gigs" that send them away from their families and pets.  Like George.

Another friend's dad, on commission, in the eighties, was downsized when his huge department store went unexpectedly under.  He transferred to the mall branch, where he was shuffled between departments until retirement.  He worked after retirement to make ends meet, at a much harder job.  He deceased while still working.

One lady I know had to work five extra years in order to retire, after the stock crash of 2008.  We all lost a lot of money in that.  Everyone I know went from having double digit savings to zero.

Right now, nearly 14 professionals in my office are past traditional retirement age.  I'm sure many are in the bottom 50%, if not all.  I don't know their actual wages, but I know some are barely earning anything (it's commission) and most have lifestyles a little more frugally rustic than current bohemian trends...

The life stages you present are too simple.  Actually, I recall class work in statistics.  But equally important, I was taught to think critically.  To check sources.  To use reason, not just faith.

Jojo

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 19, 2018, 02:32:45 AM
This is a dynamic economy.  It is finally easier to find a good job now than it has been since the 2008 meltdown. 

Statistics don't really mean anything when it comes to one person - all you need is one good job, and these charts and other long term statistical tables aren't relevant to that.  I don't know where you live, but you may have to move to find one - but right now there are plenty out there. 

I suggest not paying attention to the Democrat gloom and doomers, whose only interest is regaining power - they aren't going to tell you the truth about any of this.  Even the pretend media can't hide the job growth, although they are playing it down for all they're worth.
I did move to find work, just like a lot of other people had to do.

Moving is expensive, there are losses, there are tolls.  If the mileage difference is less than the IRS distance requirement the relocation is not deductible.

I moved from the lifestyle I worked all my life to attain.  I started working when I was a kid.  Picking strawberries, blueberries.  Weekly paper route, daily paper route, Sunday papers, big hills.  Child care, ironing, painting houses...  Then working for a neighborhood business while in high school.  My first year of college (housing, food and all) away from home with no car was mostly paid from the wages of those childhood jobs, and the $50 in periodic interest paid from Washington Mutual (The lowest 50% of employees used to earn interest from banks). I earned the lifestyle I wanted.

My pets were safe, their own fenced yard, no busy street. I had a place where I probably would have fared alright in a disaster.  With wood heat in winter, shade in summer, and close by fishing available, if worse came to worse.  No worries about looting.

But I moved to the city for its slightly better job market.  A city where in a disaster, we would all starve after looting.  Where there would be no heat or A/C method in a real disaster.  Pets having to stay inside because of traffic.  Those things matter to me.  Moving back to the city is not a secure decision when you really think about it.

And to what end?  There have been jobs, more than in the county.  But they don't pay well, they are short and my loved ones are buried out in the county so there is that loss too.  I worked all my life for that lifestyle.  I deserved it.  I was worth it.  I contributed overtime for three years, as well as double time and triple time.  During which time I often had a weekend side job, or managed my own single family rental.  And still managed to volunteer in my community. 

When the downsizing occurred, I met other girls at unemployment.  One of them said to me deadpan, "All my jewelry is SOLD and I still don't have a job." I heard her, knowing it could just be a matter of time before I was in the same boat.  And I was competing against her, and she was younger.  Well, a few years later, it started to happen to me.  First, to sell jewelry which was not sentimental. The antiques.  The beloved piano.  The animal kennel.  Furniture.  Then, everything, like a garage sale.

Five years after downsizing, I had to sell my 3-year employment anniversary necklace to diagnose and euthanize my dog and take care of his remains.  Later, I found I couldn't sell my 5-year bracelet because in getting older, my wrists had thinned (osteoporosis) and it had fallen off!  Then, to pay rent, I had to sell my 10-year earrings.  And unique estate jewelry I had loved.  Stuff I had not only purchased, but had paid to have altered or repaired. I had to sell a wonderful pair of handmade earrings from someone very special.

If I had my life to do over again, I would have set my sights much lower.  Maybe start at the community college.  Maybe not start college until I had an employer that paid tuition.  Certainly not to start to without a car, so far away. All my life, I was told housing and reasonable investments were safe.  But it wasn't true.  All that work, to have the carpet just pulled out from under me.  It would have been better to rent a lot longer, maybe find a rental with a big yard or something. And to just eventually settle for a manufactured home.  To not get saddled with too many pets, because you never know when a layoff could occur.  And certainly not to work so much overtime (although a significant amount of it was mandatory) or moon-lighting.  I really sacrificed, to be a homeowner, and twice over.  But clearly my personal and financial investment did not payoff.  I mean, one home profited, but I never wanted to sell it so that was besides the point.

It all worked out.  I was really lucky when I moved to the city that I was able to bring all three of my remaining older pets, and that one had recently passed away at home.  And even though I eventually lost everything, it was only economic.  I wasn't fleeing any persecution in the sense that political refugees do.  I didn't lose everything in a house fire or flood, like some.  I got to have the grace to prioritize and name my price.  So, I don't feel too sorry for myself.  But if I had life to do over again, I would have found ways to get the fresh air and space I wanted, without getting deep into mortgage debt.  And not work and study so much.  And take entitlements sooner.  I qualified for years early on, but didn't do it. 
But I probably had a duty to my own future, to accept the hand out.  If I had accepted food stamps and unemployment during the young years when I qualified, it would have added up to money in my pocket.  Who knows, maybe I would have had that, had more cash on hand, when the downsizing occured!

Jackstar

Quote from: Jojo on March 19, 2018, 03:30:16 AM
But equally important, I was taught to think critically. 

Who killed Kennedy?


Quote from: Jojo on March 19, 2018, 03:30:16 AM
... Airlines profit from families being divided...

I'm sorry everything didn't work out the way you wanted it to.  I understand that things changed for a lot of people following the 2008 meltdown.

Normally a sharp drop in the economy like we had is followed by a sharp bounce back (assets become cheap and there is a readily available pool of employees available) - surely within a year or two - but this time it didn't happen.  Interesting you assign no blame to a president who routinely attacked the producers and those who provide jobs for eight years, and not coincidentally presided over a stagnate economy. 

As soon as he was replaced by someone projecting confidence in capitalism and the private sector, and confidence in the economy was restored, we finally get the job growth we expected eight years ago.

Yet you are unable to make these connections.


As far as the airlines, are you really suggesting they are terrible organizations because they provide a service people want, and should provide that service without making any money?  The way you posed that comment reveals much.  If you truly feel oppressive Socialism is the answer to how the economy and government should be set up then there's really no use in further discussion - that argument is over, yet we continue to see it on display, most recently in Venezuela.

For extra credit, tell me who has been in charge of our big cities for the past 50 years - causing much of the damage you point to - and has run them into the ground

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 19, 2018, 10:28:13 AM
For extra credit, tell me who has been in charge of our big cities for the past 50 years - causing much of the damage you point to - and has run them into the ground

D'rats ;)

ItsOver

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on March 19, 2018, 10:28:13 AM
For extra credit, tell me who has been in charge of our big cities for the past 50 years - causing much of the damage you point to - and has run them into the ground
Heh, heh, heh.  When I drive into a large demoncrat controlled metro down the road from me, I always shake my head when I'm on the third world quality city streets.  The potholes are large enough to blow tires and break axles.  Hell, they occasionally dump some concrete down, don't even finish it with asphalt and call it a city street.  The incompetent demoncrat characters in the city government can't even take care of public roadways.  Why would anyone believe these same self-serving idiots can do better at anything else?  Can we declare these regimes bankrupt and get rid of them?  I wish.

Juan


Dr. MD MD

Mick Jagger sang:

I shouted out,
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all
It was you and me.

"You and me" meaning him and someone else. I'd call that a confession. Why has he never been questioned?!

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod