I'm curious whether there is a correlation between new housing starts and existing commercial building renovation. Housing starts are supposed to reflect on the health of the economy, but commercial re-construction of existing structures doesn't seem to follow the same regular pattern.
Not in my mind. That glib phrase has annoyed me from the first that I read it. For journalists they provide a paucity of information about this. I and others might be swayed if there were transparency about the whole deal. Without such transparency, my suspicions of some manner of malfeasance remain strong.
yeah, that whole 'fun at parties' schtick has run its course. i have an opinion and have expressed it without rancor. you dismiss it with your tired old 'fun at parties' shitschtick. not mad, just annoyed with the hypocrisy. schoen whatever's net worth at $4 mil. 'because reasons' and dipshits will donate because of a 'because reasons' shitphrase ain't no better than the scam coming from the other side. Explain yourselves, perhaps.
owner's net worth $4 mil, spare me. transparency suits real journalists. use some here and explain the amazon connection and wonkette"s benefits versus the funds that are returned to the amazonmonster. anything else is dishonesty. 'because reasons', give me a fucking break. what reasons? what reasons?
yeah, that whole 'fun at parties' schtick has really run its course. Do you have opinions? Are you comfortable in expressing them? Corporate greed driving inflation, duh! Wonkette running an article about corporate greed yet encouraging its readership to use one of the worst examples to fund its operations when its owner has a net worth of $4 million is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy. Yes, I have an opinion about it.
If a person who owns/runs a company is wealthy themselves, you do not think that you/users should pay the company for the product of its labor? They should not ask for money for its product, or they should not earn an income from their company? I’m still confused by your argument. Certainly I can imagine if a person were to run a company out of pocket, paying workers living wages/insurance/time off, and maintaining what all goes into running a website, that is an unsustainable business model. I don’t know where you got the $4M figure, but I can imagine that actually wouldn’t go very far in terms of running a company without income, and when it was exhausted, their family, their workers, and all the people who enjoy the site would be out of luck. What is the point of running a business if not to make an income and use its income to perpetuate its operations?
Your original comment was critical of the Amazon kick-back, but I get the impression that’s a pretty minor portion of wonkette’s incoming money. Is that the whole problem for you? If they did not have the Amazon kick-back, would you feel positively toward the site/writers/owners asking for direct donations to support itself, or believe that they do not pull in enough through donations to cover expenses? Why does the one-way association between wonkette and Amazon (wonkette takes money from Amazon, not the other way around, as far as I understand) smear wonkette’s reputation in your opinion regarding labor, but wonkette being committed to being good for labor not matter to you?
Out of genuine curiosity, what would your preference be for how a site like this should operate in order to be a viable business? (I am still assuming that you are in favor of paying the writers a living wage, with insurance and time off.) What alternative would be acceptable to you?
Right? If the extra money acquired (I won't say earned) simply from parking your money somewhere isn't taxed higher than money earned for actual work, I'd settle for it to be taxed the same, and certainly no less.
And I'm not talking about a bullshit flat tax, either. In fact, let's bring back pre-Reagan progressive rates with brackets adjusted for present conditions.
edit to add: I'm sure the republican economist (like that asshole Stephen Moore who is always wrong) would yammer on about investing being risky and so on, and how "due diligence IS real work," but they get to write off their losses so the risk is mitigated and the real work is still not theirs.
Get with the program. It's all BRANDON, JR.!!!!!!!1111!1!!1!!!11
I ran into a filker who did an MS3TK/ Encanto mashup called, "We Don't Talk About Torgo."
Polo!
I'm curious whether there is a correlation between new housing starts and existing commercial building renovation. Housing starts are supposed to reflect on the health of the economy, but commercial re-construction of existing structures doesn't seem to follow the same regular pattern.
You're way over-thinking this.
Not in my mind. That glib phrase has annoyed me from the first that I read it. For journalists they provide a paucity of information about this. I and others might be swayed if there were transparency about the whole deal. Without such transparency, my suspicions of some manner of malfeasance remain strong.
Schoenkopf, net worth $4mil. I'll keep my dollars, thanks, cause: reasons.
So you'll just keep getting something for nothing? Hmmm.
yeah, that whole 'fun at parties' schtick has run its course. i have an opinion and have expressed it without rancor. you dismiss it with your tired old 'fun at parties' shitschtick. not mad, just annoyed with the hypocrisy. schoen whatever's net worth at $4 mil. 'because reasons' and dipshits will donate because of a 'because reasons' shitphrase ain't no better than the scam coming from the other side. Explain yourselves, perhaps.
schoenkopf net worth $4mil. spare me.
owner's net worth $4 mil, spare me. transparency suits real journalists. use some here and explain the amazon connection and wonkette"s benefits versus the funds that are returned to the amazonmonster. anything else is dishonesty. 'because reasons', give me a fucking break. what reasons? what reasons?
So..you're cool just being considered A Asswipe?
Always embrace who you are, I reckon. Never apologize.
yeah, that whole 'fun at parties' schtick has really run its course. Do you have opinions? Are you comfortable in expressing them? Corporate greed driving inflation, duh! Wonkette running an article about corporate greed yet encouraging its readership to use one of the worst examples to fund its operations when its owner has a net worth of $4 million is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy. Yes, I have an opinion about it.
If a person who owns/runs a company is wealthy themselves, you do not think that you/users should pay the company for the product of its labor? They should not ask for money for its product, or they should not earn an income from their company? I’m still confused by your argument. Certainly I can imagine if a person were to run a company out of pocket, paying workers living wages/insurance/time off, and maintaining what all goes into running a website, that is an unsustainable business model. I don’t know where you got the $4M figure, but I can imagine that actually wouldn’t go very far in terms of running a company without income, and when it was exhausted, their family, their workers, and all the people who enjoy the site would be out of luck. What is the point of running a business if not to make an income and use its income to perpetuate its operations?
Your original comment was critical of the Amazon kick-back, but I get the impression that’s a pretty minor portion of wonkette’s incoming money. Is that the whole problem for you? If they did not have the Amazon kick-back, would you feel positively toward the site/writers/owners asking for direct donations to support itself, or believe that they do not pull in enough through donations to cover expenses? Why does the one-way association between wonkette and Amazon (wonkette takes money from Amazon, not the other way around, as far as I understand) smear wonkette’s reputation in your opinion regarding labor, but wonkette being committed to being good for labor not matter to you?
Out of genuine curiosity, what would your preference be for how a site like this should operate in order to be a viable business? (I am still assuming that you are in favor of paying the writers a living wage, with insurance and time off.) What alternative would be acceptable to you?
maybe
https://twitter.com/crwequi...
Right? If the extra money acquired (I won't say earned) simply from parking your money somewhere isn't taxed higher than money earned for actual work, I'd settle for it to be taxed the same, and certainly no less.
And I'm not talking about a bullshit flat tax, either. In fact, let's bring back pre-Reagan progressive rates with brackets adjusted for present conditions.
edit to add: I'm sure the republican economist (like that asshole Stephen Moore who is always wrong) would yammer on about investing being risky and so on, and how "due diligence IS real work," but they get to write off their losses so the risk is mitigated and the real work is still not theirs.