DuckSouth.com

I have looked into it, believe me.

The problem with them is the same as others - talk is cheap.
You are still running a propaganda machine, you don't need the money.
DO the right thing.

YoBenny wrote:I have looked into it, believe me.

The problem with them is the same as others - talk is cheap.
You are still running a propaganda machine, you don't need the money.
DO the right thing.

So you think all of Hollywood etc will just do the right thing and agree to a huge tax increase to aid the less fortunate???

That wasn't about that.
It's about the Murdochs aborting fox news like a malignant cancer.

City of Jackson is a great example or model. The zoo now just cut wages in half for all employees to maintain zoo. Why won't city bail them out?? I mean they are the ones against moving it to the natural science museum area where it would make a killing. They have no reason other than their theory is we need better management for an urban zoo??? They neglect the crime rate, potholes, blighted area and fail to see the money the natural science museum generates each year. It's a no brainer to move it where more people will visit because they will actually feel safe to do so. It's a win for everyone but they don't see it that way. I guess they will wait for rankin county to open one like they did the amphitheater and then what will they have??? Just more potholes and busted pipes and no tax base.

Do they have a budget to make the transition? I thought that place was flat broke, moving a zoo aint cheap.

YoBenny wrote:Do they have a budget to make the transition? I thought that place was flat broke, moving a zoo aint cheap.

Oh they are relying on investors..... go figure. Got em lined up as long as they move to Lakeland. If they choose to stay they won't invest. But I guess they should do the "right" thing and invest in west Jackson knowing they will lose all their money and the end result is a closed zoo.

This guy gets it.

Plenty people get it, believe me.
It's just it doesn't work like it used to.

YoBenny wrote:Plenty people get it, believe me.
It's just it doesn't work like it used to.

Why not?

I think it’s high time we examine your ideal utopian society.

You are on record as saying business should be paying high enough wages to provide for...... and then you list several components of what an individual should be able to work a regular job and be able to afford.

How about we go through this? I would prefer a new thread.

Before we get started I think it will be a good idea to identify some baseline points on the front end.

Start out by identifying who we are looking at.

Single mom with four kids?

Single 28 man year old man with no kids?

Husband and wife with 2.8 kids?

Or do we want to do a separate examination for all three?

YoBenny wrote:The reality of owning a business is if you have to pay people less than it takes to live to stay in business, then you shouldn't be in business in the first place. Just because a business can run screwing people over does not make it legitimate.

Let’s include this as part of the discussion on what amount people should be paid.

No, china has not blinked as of yet. But they’re definitely feeling the pressure to do so.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... 1027429904

I remember back in the day (cant remember the year) everyone was alarmed that Japan was buying US debt, companies and real estate and it was gonna be gloom and doom. Howd that turn out for them?
They still in recession i think.

How about a little voter fraud?

https://mobile.twitter.com/iamfonda/sta ... wsrc%5Etfw

I guess this can be a two way street?

Here’s some more winning.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... year-high/

Have a look at this chart. It’s quite revealing isn’t it.
Is Benny still available for debate?