Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #23488 > unrolled thread

Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-08 13:38 -0400
    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-08 13:48 -0400
      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-04-08 17:04 -0500
        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-04-08 18:26 -0400
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) - 2012-04-09 12:52 +1200
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:13 -0500
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-09 19:39 -0700
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-10 10:57 -0500
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-10 09:24 -0700
        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-08 20:33 -0400
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-04-08 21:11 -0400
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-08 18:18 -0700
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-09 06:58 -0400
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-09 08:26 -0700
                  Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-09 13:35 -0400
                  Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:23 -0500
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:24 -0500
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) - 2012-04-14 03:48 +0000
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:21 -0500
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-09 19:33 -0700
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:15 -0500
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-09 21:22 -0400
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-04-10 18:08 -0400
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-10 18:35 -0400
                  Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-10 19:09 -0500
                    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-10 17:32 -0700
                      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-10 19:55 -0500
                        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-10 20:03 -0700
                    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-04-10 21:25 -0400
                      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-04-10 22:42 -0400
                        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-11 08:10 -0400
                        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-11 12:03 -0400
                          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-04-11 18:27 -0400
                            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-12 12:08 -0400
                              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 17:54 -0700
                                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-14 11:49 -0400
                            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-12 20:14 +0200
                        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-11 12:55 -0400
                          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2012-04-11 15:21 -0700
                      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-11 10:59 +0200
                      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-11 13:04 -0400
                    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2012-04-11 10:23 -0700
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-10 23:21 -0400
                  Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-04-20 16:09 -0400
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2012-04-11 12:43 -0400
    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2012-04-08 21:21 +0000
      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-09 11:59 -0400
        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-04-09 09:11 -0700
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-10 11:34 -0400
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-04-10 11:15 -0700
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-10 17:16 -0400
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-11 11:08 -0400
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-11 11:13 +0200
        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-09 13:33 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#23488 — Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook!

Top 50 Exec Pay (Cook's #1)

<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/business/executive-compens
ation-2012.html>

Wonder if he could spare a few bucks to update Java for 10.5.

-- 
So let me get this straight?
Mandates to pay for American healthcare are unconstitutional.
But mandates to pay for American war crimes are our patriotic duty?
Sieg heil, Amereicha!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#23489

On 2012-04-08 13:38 , Fred Moore wrote:
> Top 50 Exec Pay (Cook's #1)
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/business/executive-compens
> ation-2012.html>

Read that this am.  No wonder the US Gini index is so tilted.


-- 
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
  I said I didn't know."
                           -Samuel Clemens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23512

In article <-7mdnYRDH8HKUhzSnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012-04-08 13:38 , Fred Moore wrote:
> > Top 50 Exec Pay (Cook's #1)
> >
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/business/executive-compens
> > ation-2012.html>
> 
> Read that this am.  No wonder the US Gini index is so tilted.

Michael Moore was just about accurate.

-- 
And wackiness ensues...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23517

Tim Cook's "salary" is way out of whack with the rest of the folks. I
suspect this is because of a one time signing bonus. So it may not be a
fair comparison agianst CEOs who have been at their job for a long time.

Next year might be a better indication of Cook's "on going" compensation.

I have to wonder however whether one's lifestyle changes once you get
above 10 million per years. There is only so much money someone can
spend during your free time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23524

In article <4f82109e$0$2071$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> Tim Cook's "salary" is way out of whack with the rest of the folks. I
> suspect this is because of a one time signing bonus. So it may not be a
> fair comparison agianst CEOs who have been at their job for a long time.
> 
> Next year might be a better indication of Cook's "on going" compensation.
> 
> I have to wonder however whether one's lifestyle changes once you get
> above 10 million per years. There is only so much money someone can
> spend during your free time.

Just like all management-types, Tim Cook's on-going salary will still be
massively "out of whack" with normal people.  :o(

Helpful Harry  :o)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23558

On 4/8/12 5:26 PM, in article
4f82109e$0$2071$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> I have to wonder however whether one's lifestyle changes once you get
> above 10 million per years. There is only so much money someone can
> spend during your free time.

Oh, but you are so naïve. Here are ten stories that prove that statement
wrong...

<http://www.oddee.com/item_97101.aspx>

Plus, the 536 goofballs in Washington who think that our pockets are hind
teats that will never run dry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23580

In article <CBA890FB.850F0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I have to wonder however whether one's lifestyle changes once you get 
> > above 10 million per years. There is only so much money someone can 
> > spend during your free time.
> 
> Oh, but you are so naïve. Here are ten stories that prove that statement 
> wrong...
> 
> <http://www.oddee.com/item_97101.aspx>

Well, only nine stories; can't count the one about the lottery winner who 
was murdered.  Besides, those stories are about people who won mere 
millions in the lottery (and it was left unsaid that those who opted for a 
lump sum payment actually got less than the value of the lottery, because 
that value included future value); there is only so much one can spend, but 
that is more than a paltry few million.

> Plus, the 536 goofballs in Washington who think that our pockets are 
> hind teats that will never run dry.

Have you noticed that the majority of them are Republicans?

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23588

On 4/9/12 9:39 PM, in article
michelle-95A5F8.19392609042012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <CBA890FB.850F0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I have to wonder however whether one's lifestyle changes once you get
>>> above 10 million per years. There is only so much money someone can
>>> spend during your free time.
>> 
>> Oh, but you are so naïve. Here are ten stories that prove that statement
>> wrong...
>> 
>> <http://www.oddee.com/item_97101.aspx>
> 
> Well, only nine stories; can't count the one about the lottery winner who
> was murdered.  Besides, those stories are about people who won mere
> millions in the lottery (and it was left unsaid that those who opted for a
> lump sum payment actually got less than the value of the lottery, because
> that value included future value); there is only so much one can spend, but
> that is more than a paltry few million.
> 
>> Plus, the 536 goofballs in Washington who think that our pockets are
>> hind teats that will never run dry.
> 
> Have you noticed that the majority of them are Republicans?

No. Not until 2010 election, and that was just one House. Dirty Harry still
runs the Upper House. But we'll see this Fall, will we not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23589

In article <CBA9C295.85231%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> Plus, the 536 goofballs in Washington who think that our pockets are
> >> hind teats that will never run dry.
> > 
> > Have you noticed that the majority of them are Republicans?
> 
> No. Not until 2010 election, 

"Are":  present tense.

> and that was just one House. Dirty Harry still runs the Upper House.

The majority of all 536 are Republicans.

> But we'll see this Fall, will we not?

Yeah, the GOP majority will shrink, and maybe completely vanish for at 
least two years, but hopefully longer.  ;)

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23521

In article <timmcn-B54394.17042908042012@news.iphouse.com>,
 Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> In article <-7mdnYRDH8HKUhzSnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
> > On 2012-04-08 13:38 , Fred Moore wrote:
> > > Top 50 Exec Pay (Cook's #1)
> > >
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/business/executive-compens
> > > ation-2012.html>
> > 
> > Read that this am.  No wonder the US Gini index is so tilted.
> 
> Michael Moore was just about accurate.

The thing that MM and all the others (especially the NYT ignore is that 
current exec compensation is almost entirely due to a change in tax 
policy in the mid-80s that was supposed to address problems in executive 
pay. 
    It changed tax laws to effectively cap executive salaries at $1 
million by making that the highest amount the Corp could deduct (and if 
you look at K-1, most actual salaries still tend to be around $1 million 
to this day). 
     Then, in an attempt to align the interests of management with the 
interests of shareholder, they tax-favored stock options and 
peformance-based bonuses. So, instead of being paid largely a salary (to 
run the company) they were paid largely in options and bonuses (to run 
the stock price). It wasn't two years later before the first 
book-cooking scandal erupted.
     Two other major outcomes. (1). Executive's total compensation went 
to areas that even the most captive Board wouldn't have had the balls to 
pay them.  The second thing was the most interesting as the vaunted 
executive pay to average worker pay ratio went through the roof. During 
the 60s, 70s and early 80s, it had meandered around in range of 20-30 
times. In the mid-80s (within a couple of years of enactment) it had 
risen to more than 150 times and topped out in the late 90s around 300 
times, still better than 250 the last time I looked.
      Tax policy that was supposed to reign in executive pay did exactly 
the opposite, yet the COngress skates responsibility.

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23525

Kurt Ullman:
>       Tax policy that was supposed to reign in executive pay did exactly 
> the opposite, yet the COngress skates responsibility.

The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the
U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy
classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting.
All three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is
the keystone.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23526

In article <080420122111083870%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the 
> U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy 
> classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting. All 
> three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is the 
> keystone.

The problem is that congress is revolting.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23538

In article <michelle-05FDAC.18185708042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <080420122111083870%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> 
> > The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the 
> > U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy 
> > classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting. All 
> > three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is the 
> > keystone.
> 
> The problem is that congress is revolting.

 Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion; 
nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a 
revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23544

In article <H6ednfOHAoJdXR_SnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of 
> > > the U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the 
> > > wealthy classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from 
> > > revolting. All three branches of government play their part, but the 
> > > Congress is the keystone.
> > 
> > The problem is that congress is revolting.
> 
>  Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion; 
> nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a 
> revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.

I intended the first meaning, but both meanings apply to the GOP.  
<snicker>; just had to get that dig in or you and Kerby would think I'm not 
feeling well. <g>

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23555

In article <michelle-2327B7.08264809042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <H6ednfOHAoJdXR_SnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of 
> > > > the U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the 
> > > > wealthy classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from 
> > > > revolting. All three branches of government play their part, but the 
> > > > Congress is the keystone.
> > > 
> > > The problem is that congress is revolting.
> > 
> >  Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion; 
> > nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a 
> > revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.
> 
> I intended the first meaning, but both meanings apply to the GOP.  
> <snicker>; just had to get that dig in or you and Kerby would think I'm not 
> feeling well. <g>

Your health is always a concern of mine (grin). Actually I am very much 
bipartisan in my revulsioning.

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23563

On 4/9/12 10:26 AM, in article
michelle-2327B7.08264809042012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <H6ednfOHAoJdXR_SnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of
>>>> the U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the
>>>> wealthy classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from
>>>> revolting. All three branches of government play their part, but the
>>>> Congress is the keystone.
>>> 
>>> The problem is that congress is revolting.
>> 
>>  Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion;
>> nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a
>> revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.
> 
> I intended the first meaning, but both meanings apply to the GOP.
> <snicker>; just had to get that dig in or you and Kerby would think I'm not
> feeling well. <g>

Should have done that on Sunday a week ago...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23564

On 4/9/12 5:58 AM, in article
H6ednfOHAoJdXR_SnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Kurt Ullman"
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-05FDAC.18185708042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <080420122111083870%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the
>>> U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy
>>> classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting. All
>>> three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is the
>>> keystone.
>> 
>> The problem is that congress is revolting.
> 
>  Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion;
> nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a
> revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.

Gag me with a spoon!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23784

In article <michelle-05FDAC.18185708042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <080420122111083870%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>
>> The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the 
>> U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy 
>> classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting. All 
>> three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is the 
>> keystone.
>
>The problem is that congress is revolting.

They've always been revolting, but they never seem to get the job done.
-- 
The problem with socialism is there's always 
someone with less ability and more need.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23562

On 4/8/12 8:11 PM, in article 080420122111083870%star@sky.net, "Davoud"
<star@sky.net> wrote:

> Kurt Ullman:
>>       Tax policy that was supposed to reign in executive pay did exactly
>> the opposite, yet the COngress skates responsibility.
> 
> The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the
> U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy
> classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting.
> All three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is
> the keystone.

Wrong! WRONG!! Oh SO WRONG!!!

The purpose of Congress is to keep themselves in power and not have to
bother with the problems of us Commoners. They intension work the mooing
masses against the 'rich boogiemen'. All the while filling their pockets
with the taxpayers' hard earned money.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23579

In article <CBA892C8.850F4%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The purpose of Congress is to keep themselves in power and not have to 
> bother with the problems of us Commoners. They intension work the mooing 
> masses against the 'rich boogiemen'. All the while filling their pockets 
> with the taxpayers' hard earned money.

And filling the rich boogiemen's pockets (and most of them are among or are 
beholden to the rich boogiemen) with the taxpayers' hard earned money.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web