Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Ummmm

Jonesboro, AR

#26111 Jul 30, 2013
Dr Pill wrote:
<quoted text>
characteristic of an emotional immature person. The best way to identify it is by selfish behavior. It is unlikely that they will have any concern for their actions or consequences.
Another strong trait is that they do not accept responsibility for their actions and find another individual's actions to be the cause of their poor performance or inability. They commonly don't have a realistic view on themselves and are not susceptible to constructive criticism.
Dear Dr Phil, Glad to see that you and your other selfs have moved to Biggers. Must have met Barney in your travels, not only do you describe him well but have also developed his habit of cut and paste. Well, those of us that work need to go there.
Ummmm

Jonesboro, AR

#26112 Jul 30, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Denial will not help, I will help you with prayer and information.
FacebookYouTubeDr. Phil BlogBe On Dr. Phil
Parenting
Printer Friendly Version of this Article
Be on the Show
Is Your Mom Your Nemesis?
Hate Your Kids?
Fighting w/ your Spouse Tearing your Family Apart?
Young and In Love: Should We Get Married?
Teen with Big Decision!
Sexual Predator Warning Signs
Dr. Frank Lawlis, chairman of the Dr. Phil Advisory Board and Dr. Phil's mentor, offers some insight into the development of a sexual predator:
"The typical sexual predator is very immature in his or her understanding of intimacy. It is like they really want closeness, but they lack the skills to feel satisfaction and trust. These feelings of frustration erupt into anger many times, and it is in this stage that the individual can become dangerous. Their acts are desperate. They try to find intimacy and caring for themselves, but when they can't find it in appropriate ways, they demand it or find a child who has little resistance," says Dr. Lawlis. "It is common to find parents of sexual predators also weak in skills of affection. Consequently, they cannot train or offer to meet these needs for their child. And then the cycle continues."
There are some common characteristics of sexual predators. If you're worried your teen may be a sexual predator, look for these warning signs:
•Refusal to take responsibility for actions and blames others or circumstances for failures
•A sense of entitlement
•Low self-esteem
•Need for power and control
•Lack of empathy
•Inability to form intimate relationships with adults
•History of abuse
•Troubled childhood
•Deviant sexual behavior and attitudes
From the book, Protecting Your Children from Sexual Predators, by Dr. Leigh M. Baker.
Other Tips on Spotting a Sexual Predator:
•Often offend where they won't get caught — when they have misdirected people's attention
•Often married or in relationships
•Offend when the victim is handy
•Not always strangers, often family members, family friends and neighbors
•Most attracted to adults
•Good manipulators (seduction is an integral part)
•Overly self-indulgent
•Arrogant
•Sexualize, objectify women
•Typically known as rationalizers, intellectualizers, justifiers
•Great helpers — are there to lend a helping hand — prey on people in need, when they can insinuate themselves in your life
•Use stressful and vulnerable situations to get in — they find a need they can fill and they use that to get next to the victim
Most sexual predators would pick another site to do their evil deeds, only you and/or Barney would visit this site for that purpose. Barney has always been good a shifting blame, you have a good teacher, not bright but good. I notice that I am now ummm, I hate iPads
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#26114 Jul 30, 2013
I've heard it all. I came across this article today http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/obamacare-... . It talks about people who only work for health benefits quitting the workforce and getting on welfare. It says that would be a good thing because the idea is that there will be others who are unemployed that will fill those positions thus making it a washout. It also says that the unemployment rate could rise as much as 0.3-0.6 percentage points as a result of this. First off, I don't know anyone who takes a job solely for the purpose of health care. Everyone takes a job for the paycheck first and foremost, then they consider the benefits but the paycheck is first. Second, if this is supposed to result in a washout, then why would the unemployment rise at all? Whouldn't those who are still looking for work be the first to fill the positions, or would this phenomenon cause another phenomenon where those who are not even looking for work simultaneously go out and all go to these places and fill the jobs? That is the only scenario where the unemployment could actually rise assuming that those who quit all filed for unemployment benefits but the article said they would just go to welfare which implies that they wouldn't be looking at all. The liberal mindset is so screwed up. It takes taxes for our government to run so taking people out of the labor pool only puts more strain on those who stay in and it hurts their quality of life and kills their ambition to succeed. What I find even more disturbing is that it appears as though the liberals are coming out of the closet about their true intentions. I mean putting it in print for all to read that people leaving the workforce to get on welfare being a good thing is sickening. We only have a two more chances to save this nation. One in November of 2014 and the other in November 2016. If we elect the same people we have been electing for the past 30 years (Democratic and Republican), then we are just voting for the same thing we have now. If some fresh new blood doesn't enter the political arena, then the prospect of us climbing out of this hole is bleak at best.
Pondering

Cedar Park, TX

#26115 Jul 30, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Denial will not help, I will help you with prayer and information.
FacebookYouTubeDr. Phil BlogBe On Dr. Phil
Parenting
Printer Friendly Version of this Article
Be on the Show
Is Your Mom Your Nemesis?
Hate Your Kids?
Fighting w/ your Spouse Tearing your Family Apart?
Young and In Love: Should We Get Married?
Teen with Big Decision!
Sexual Predator Warning Signs
Dr. Frank Lawlis, chairman of the Dr. Phil Advisory Board and Dr. Phil's mentor, offers some insight into the development of a sexual predator:
"The typical sexual predator is very immature in his or her understanding of intimacy. It is like they really want closeness, but they lack the skills to feel satisfaction and trust. These feelings of frustration erupt into anger many times, and it is in this stage that the individual can become dangerous. Their acts are desperate. They try to find intimacy and caring for themselves, but when they can't find it in appropriate ways, they demand it or find a child who has little resistance," says Dr. Lawlis. "It is common to find parents of sexual predators also weak in skills of affection. Consequently, they cannot train or offer to meet these needs for their child. And then the cycle continues."
There are some common characteristics of sexual predators. If you're worried your teen may be a sexual predator, look for these warning signs:
•Refusal to take responsibility for actions and blames others or circumstances for failures
•A sense of entitlement
•Low self-esteem
•Need for power and control
•Lack of empathy
•Inability to form intimate relationships with adults
•History of abuse
•Troubled childhood
•Deviant sexual behavior and attitudes
From the book, Protecting Your Children from Sexual Predators, by Dr. Leigh M. Baker.
Other Tips on Spotting a Sexual Predator:
•Often offend where they won't get caught — when they have misdirected people's attention
•Often married or in relationships
•Offend when the victim is handy
•Not always strangers, often family members, family friends and neighbors
•Most attracted to adults
•Good manipulators (seduction is an integral part)
•Overly self-indulgent
•Arrogant
•Sexualize, objectify women
•Typically known as rationalizers, intellectualizers, justifiers
•Great helpers — are there to lend a helping hand — prey on people in need, when they can insinuate themselves in your life
•Use stressful and vulnerable situations to get in — they find a need they can fill and they use that to get next to the victim
You seem to have researched this topic a lot, part of rehab?

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26116 Jul 30, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
I've heard it all. I came across this article today http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/obamacare-... . It talks about people who only work for health benefits quitting the workforce and getting on welfare. It says that would be a good thing because the idea is that there will be others who are unemployed that will fill those positions thus making it a washout. It also says that the unemployment rate could rise as much as 0.3-0.6 percentage points as a result of this. First off, I don't know anyone who takes a job solely for the purpose of health care. Everyone takes a job for the paycheck first and foremost, then they consider the benefits but the paycheck is first. Second, if this is supposed to result in a washout, then why would the unemployment rise at all? Whouldn't those who are still looking for work be the first to fill the positions, or would this phenomenon cause another phenomenon where those who are not even looking for work simultaneously go out and all go to these places and fill the jobs? That is the only scenario where the unemployment could actually rise assuming that those who quit all filed for unemployment benefits but the article said they would just go to welfare which implies that they wouldn't be looking at all. The liberal mindset is so screwed up. It takes taxes for our government to run so taking people out of the labor pool only puts more strain on those who stay in and it hurts their quality of life and kills their ambition to succeed. What I find even more disturbing is that it appears as though the liberals are coming out of the closet about their true intentions. I mean putting it in print for all to read that people leaving the workforce to get on welfare being a good thing is sickening. We only have a two more chances to save this nation. One in November of 2014 and the other in November 2016. If we elect the same people we have been electing for the past 30 years (Democratic and Republican), then we are just voting for the same thing we have now. If some fresh new blood doesn't enter the political arena, then the prospect of us climbing out of this hole is bleak at best.
said they would just go to welfare"

"unemployment rate could rise as much as 0.3-0.6 percentage points as a result of this"

REALLY THIS IS WHAT I READ;

will quit and sign up for Medicaid or subsidized coverage on the newly-created insurance exchanges. Garthwaite, Gross, and Notowidigdo calculated that the Obamacare-related decrease in the labor supply among this group of low-income workers could reduce

the employment rate by between 0.3 and 0.6 percentage points.

Let me point out a couple of things,

1. It said decrease UE not increase as you stated.

"liberals are coming out of the closet about their true intentions"

2.Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are Right Wing publications.

3. The article clearly stated many times,

"Affordable Care Act could have on the labor market"

In other words, the article was based on what if's.

Possibilities not probabilities.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26117 Jul 30, 2013
Pondering wrote:
<quoted text> You seem to have researched this topic a lot, part of rehab?
How is it conceivable to say a lot of research when only one article on the matter was put up?

The poster said they picked him out due to his comments,
it could be a consular who knows what they are talking about.

You notice the person did not deny being what he was accused of and so often speaks of, a child molester. He sure fit the profile posted.

Enough so that I had a conversation about this with the county Sheriff today.
Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#26118 Jul 30, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it conceivable to say a lot of research when only one article on the matter was put up?
The poster said they picked him out due to his comments,
it could be a consular who knows what they are talking about.
You notice the person did not deny being what he was accused of and so often speaks of, a child molester. He sure fit the profile posted.
Enough so that I had a conversation about this with the county Sheriff today.
The question was asked earlier, why would a child molester go to a site frequented by voters? Unless you're a democrat you have to be an adult to vote.
Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#26119 Jul 30, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
said they would just go to welfare"
"unemployment rate could rise as much as 0.3-0.6 percentage points as a result of this"
REALLY THIS IS WHAT I READ;
will quit and sign up for Medicaid or subsidized coverage on the newly-created insurance exchanges. Garthwaite, Gross, and Notowidigdo calculated that the Obamacare-related decrease in the labor supply among this group of low-income workers could reduce
the employment rate by between 0.3 and 0.6 percentage points.
Let me point out a couple of things,
1. It said decrease UE not increase as you stated.
"liberals are coming out of the closet about their true intentions"
2.Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are Right Wing publications.
3. The article clearly stated many times,
"Affordable Care Act could have on the labor market"
In other words, the article was based on what if's.
Possibilities not probabilities.
Obama is even hiring part timers to avoid Benefits
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#26120 Jul 30, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
said they would just go to welfare"
"unemployment rate could rise as much as 0.3-0.6 percentage points as a result of this"
REALLY THIS IS WHAT I READ;
will quit and sign up for Medicaid or subsidized coverage on the newly-created insurance exchanges. Garthwaite, Gross, and Notowidigdo calculated that the Obamacare-related decrease in the labor supply among this group of low-income workers could reduce
the employment rate by between 0.3 and 0.6 percentage points.
Let me point out a couple of things,
1. It said decrease UE not increase as you stated.
"liberals are coming out of the closet about their true intentions"
2.Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are Right Wing publications.
3. The article clearly stated many times,
"Affordable Care Act could have on the labor market"
In other words, the article was based on what if's.
Possibilities not probabilities.
Then what does "pathway from work to welfare" mean?
Misread decrease, thought it said increase. Still, that only means that more people will be added to those not loking for work which aren't counted but they're still not working and paying taxes to help this country run. I consider that a bad thing. As long as we are assuming things, I don't think that many will go from unemployment to fill those positions. Those jobs, which pay minimum wage, are a dime a dozen. Every fast food restaraunt from coast to coast is looking for help and have been for years. If nobody wanted those jobs before people went on the "pathway from work to welfare", then nobody will want those jobs after.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26121 Jul 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what does "pathway from work to welfare" mean?
Misread decrease, thought it said increase. Still, that only means that more people will be added to those not loking for work which aren't counted but they're still not working and paying taxes to help this country run. I consider that a bad thing. As long as we are assuming things, I don't think that many will go from unemployment to fill those positions. Those jobs, which pay minimum wage, are a dime a dozen. Every fast food restaraunt from coast to coast is looking for help and have been for years. If nobody wanted those jobs before people went on the "pathway from work to welfare", then nobody will want those jobs after.
I have no idea what that means, nor do I understand how you can quit your and job,

quote: "and sign up for Medicaid or subsidized coverage".

Medicaid I can understand, but how in the world do they expect the unemployed to pay their share of premium for subsidized coverage in an exchange?
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#26122 Jul 31, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what that means, nor do I understand how you can quit your and job,
quote: "and sign up for Medicaid or subsidized coverage".
Medicaid I can understand, but how in the world do they expect the unemployed to pay their share of premium for subsidized coverage in an exchange?
It came from one of your fellow liberals. You tell me. I only know that this happens in low income families, especially those who live off of the government. I see it alot from my tenants and their friends. They will do ANYTHING to stay on the government dole. They used to work very hard at giving the appearance that they simply couldn't find jobs. Now, with Obama in office, they don't even try to hide the fact that they're not going to get a job, they don't even want a job. It is much more common than people realize. I can guarantee that our town isn't an isolated case. Every town has a percentage of the population that lives that way. The people who make a good living simply bury their heads in the sand in their glass house and pretend that way of life doesn't exist. They are also the ones who are sympathetic to the lies people tell to keep generations on welfare and out of the workforce. Never working means their skillset is actually below a minimum wage job yet America pays an average of $42,000 per person per year on our entitlements. There is NO WAY those people, who have raised their standard of living to $42,000 per year will ever find a job that bridges the gap between what they are qualified to do and what they need to keep their standard of living. It's why I have a real problem with our entitlement society.
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#26123 Jul 31, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what that means, nor do I understand how you can quit your and job,
quote: "and sign up for Medicaid or subsidized coverage".
Medicaid I can understand, but how in the world do they expect the unemployed to pay their share of premium for subsidized coverage in an exchange?
You are really a smart person and I hate the fact that you use your intelligence and political savy to support the liberal agenda that are using things like welfare and other entitlements to control the population. If you look at history, you will find that leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Lennon, and Marx along with other world leaders all initialized universal health care as one of the first things during their rule. Once a government controls healthcare, they can control any aspect of citizens lives. Governments can rule that any activity we perform can have significant health ramifications thus the ability to make laws to prohibit those activities. Sure, for every Germany or Russia, there is a Denmark or Switzerland where socialized healthcare isn't abused. I, for one, don't want to take that chance. I will always choose personal freedom and personal accountability any day over government intrusion.
Guest

Jonesboro, AR

#26124 Jul 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
It came from one of your fellow liberals. You tell me. I only know that this happens in low income families, especially those who live off of the government. I see it alot from my tenants and their friends. They will do ANYTHING to stay on the government dole. They used to work very hard at giving the appearance that they simply couldn't find jobs. Now, with Obama in office, they don't even try to hide the fact that they're not going to get a job, they don't even want a job. It is much more common than people realize. I can guarantee that our town isn't an isolated case. Every town has a percentage of the population that lives that way. The people who make a good living simply bury their heads in the sand in their glass house and pretend that way of life doesn't exist. They are also the ones who are sympathetic to the lies people tell to keep generations on welfare and out of the workforce. Never working means their skillset is actually below a minimum wage job yet America pays an average of $42,000 per person per year on our entitlements. There is NO WAY those people, who have raised their standard of living to $42,000 per year will ever find a job that bridges the gap between what they are qualified to do and what they need to keep their standard of living. It's why I have a real problem with our entitlement society.
And that 42K is why Barney is for it. He works 20 hours a week at 8.25 an hour so he grosses 8,600 a year. Add his entitlements and tax savings, he's clearing a college professor's income.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26126 Jul 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really a smart person and I hate the fact that you use your intelligence and political savy to support the liberal agenda that are using things like welfare and other entitlements to control the population. If you look at history, you will find that leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Lennon, and Marx along with other world leaders all initialized universal health care as one of the first things during their rule. Once a government controls healthcare, they can control any aspect of citizens lives. Governments can rule that any activity we perform can have significant health ramifications thus the ability to make laws to prohibit those activities. Sure, for every Germany or Russia, there is a Denmark or Switzerland where socialized healthcare isn't abused. I, for one, don't want to take that chance. I will always choose personal freedom and personal accountability any day over government intrusion.
I presume you meant Vladimir Lenin not "Lennon".
In a communist society many things are controlled by the state.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26127 Jul 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
It came from one of your fellow liberals. You tell me. I only know that this happens in low income families, especially those who live off of the government. I see it alot from my tenants and their friends. They will do ANYTHING to stay on the government dole. They used to work very hard at giving the appearance that they simply couldn't find jobs. Now, with Obama in office, they don't even try to hide the fact that they're not going to get a job, they don't even want a job. It is much more common than people realize. I can guarantee that our town isn't an isolated case. Every town has a percentage of the population that lives that way. The people who make a good living simply bury their heads in the sand in their glass house and pretend that way of life doesn't exist. They are also the ones who are sympathetic to the lies people tell to keep generations on welfare and out of the workforce. Never working means their skillset is actually below a minimum wage job yet America pays an average of $42,000 per person per year on our entitlements. There is NO WAY those people, who have raised their standard of living to $42,000 per year will ever find a job that bridges the gap between what they are qualified to do and what they need to keep their standard of living. It's why I have a real problem with our entitlement society.
Entitlements and welfare, are you suggesting they are the same thing?

Where did you get that figure of 42k per person?

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26128 Jul 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
It came from one of your fellow liberals. You tell me. I only know that this happens in low income families, especially those who live off of the government. I see it alot from my tenants and their friends. They will do ANYTHING to stay on the government dole. They used to work very hard at giving the appearance that they simply couldn't find jobs. Now, with Obama in office, they don't even try to hide the fact that they're not going to get a job, they don't even want a job. It is much more common than people realize. I can guarantee that our town isn't an isolated case. Every town has a percentage of the population that lives that way. The people who make a good living simply bury their heads in the sand in their glass house and pretend that way of life doesn't exist. They are also the ones who are sympathetic to the lies people tell to keep generations on welfare and out of the workforce. Never working means their skillset is actually below a minimum wage job yet America pays an average of $42,000 per person per year on our entitlements. There is NO WAY those people, who have raised their standard of living to $42,000 per year will ever find a job that bridges the gap between what they are qualified to do and what they need to keep their standard of living. It's why I have a real problem with our entitlement society.
No beef with corporate welfare?

2010, The Walton's wealth has risen and most other Americans' wealth declined, it is now the case that the Walton family wealth is as large as the bottom 48.8 million families in the wealth distribution (constituting 41.5 percent of all American families) combined.

The report analyzes data from Wisconsin's Medicaid program, estimating that a single 300-person Wal-Mart Supercenter in that state likely costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost up to $1,744,590 per year, or roughly $5,815 per employee.

Two sides to every argument, here is what Wal-Mart had to say.

Wal-Mart, in an analysis posted on its website, described the report as "flawed," criticizing the reliance on the data from Wisconsin to make "vast generalizations." In its rebuttal, the company said the report failed to take into account Wal-Mart's size and that the number of its workers on Medicaid is similar to other big retailers and comparable to the national average.



Now did they just say, others are doing it so it is okay for us to do the same?

Did I happen to mention the Walton's are big time Republicans?

Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#26129 Jul 31, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Entitlements and welfare, are you suggesting they are the same thing?
Where did you get that figure of 42k per person?
First off, let me say as I usually do, but didn't in this occasion, that you need to take this article along with every other article with a grain of salt. I couldn't find the article I had found previously but I did find this: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-...

This article breaks down to $68,000 per recipient (in the 19% for welfare and other entitlements). Even though that number would strengthen my argument, I have a hard time believing the dollar amount is that high. Just my opinion.
Duh

Jonesboro, AR

#26130 Jul 31, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I presume you meant Vladimir Lenin not "Lennon".
In a communist society many things are controlled by the state.
That could even be said to be a description of communism.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26131 Jul 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, let me say as I usually do, but didn't in this occasion, that you need to take this article along with every other article with a grain of salt. I couldn't find the article I had found previously but I did find this: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-...
This article breaks down to $68,000 per recipient (in the 19% for welfare and other entitlements). Even though that number would strengthen my argument, I have a hard time believing the dollar amount is that high. Just my opinion.
Are you familiar with the Heritage foundation? You would be wise to consider those numbers high coming from that group, however that is another story.

I agree they are to high, and my opinion why they are.

If you will notice they added Welfare to Entitlement programs to reach the their 62%.

They are not the same, just as their name suggests.

Social Security and Medicare ,unemployment, are entitlement programs and by far make up the bulk of that 62%.

Medicaid, SSI, food stamps, and housing assistance would be Welfare programs.

Entitlement programs either the recipient, or the recipient employer has paid into those funds and are entitled to get their money back.

Welfare you did not have to pay a dime to anyone to receive benefits.

'Entitlement'

Why are conservatives trying to convince me that is a dirty word.

Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#26132 Jul 31, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
No beef with corporate welfare?
2010, The Walton's wealth has risen and most other Americans' wealth declined, it is now the case that the Walton family wealth is as large as the bottom 48.8 million families in the wealth distribution (constituting 41.5 percent of all American families) combined.
The report analyzes data from Wisconsin's Medicaid program, estimating that a single 300-person Wal-Mart Supercenter in that state likely costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost up to $1,744,590 per year, or roughly $5,815 per employee.
Two sides to every argument, here is what Wal-Mart had to say.
Wal-Mart, in an analysis posted on its website, described the report as "flawed," criticizing the reliance on the data from Wisconsin to make "vast generalizations." In its rebuttal, the company said the report failed to take into account Wal-Mart's size and that the number of its workers on Medicaid is similar to other big retailers and comparable to the national average.
Now did they just say, others are doing it so it is okay for us to do the same?
Did I happen to mention the Walton's are big time Republicans?
I would answer your question with a some of questions of my own. How many jobs does a person who has never worked create? How many jobs does the CEO of Wal Mart create? What is their economic impact on the American economy? We need to give businesses who employ people that pay taxes to support the function of this nation as many business breaks as possible to enable them to hire as many people as possible. Having said that, I do believe that if a company CEO's are found taking the tax breaks and using them for their own personal use, then jail time is in order along with removal of the tax breaks. A company should be able to show a trail that clearly shows the usage of the funds for their intended purpose. As for the Walton's wealth, do you really think that they got their wealth off of the sale of one product? No, they get their wealth a few cents or dollars at a time. Since they probably have over 100K items in each Wal Mart and probably around 3,000-5,000 Wal Marts world wide, it wouldn't take long for revenues to add up. Especially since Wal Mart turns their inventory at least 2.5 times per year which is about average for retailers. Not to mention they are a publicly traded company. On the income front, did you know that income inequality has sped up and the gap has widened significantly under Obama? More so than under Bush. Under Obama, the rich are getting richer faster and the poor are getting poorer faster. He is not about income equality. He is about control and power regardless of who can survive his governing and who can't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

El Dorado Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hotshots struggling 2 hr M A Young 43
Whats the deal with Wendy Morgan? (Mar '14) 13 hr Dannyboy 58
Hillary 4 Prison 15 hr To Fud 48
Cute nice guy 15 hr Wife 20
Catina Robinson Frazier 16 hr Bosco 2
Fact or fiction? Rascals and elm st bakery clos... Wed common sense 27
musicfest Tue Mark Givens 3

El Dorado Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

El Dorado Mortgages