inkman Posted June 14, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2018 The gift that keeps giving Democrat & Chronicle: Geese 1, Golisano 0: Billionaire loses tax assessment battle https://on.rocne.ws/2sTkvnm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 14, 2018 Report Share Posted June 14, 2018 Good. Eff that old, rich douche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 On 11/14/2017 at 9:31 AM, inkman said: Scouring a Denny's near you for more sugar packets. It is difficult to imagine the possibility that a man like Ross, who Forbes estimates is worth some $700 million, might steal a few million from one of his business partners. Unless you have heard enough stories about Ross. Two former WL Ross colleagues remember the commerce secretary taking handfuls of Sweet’N Low packets from a nearby restaurant, so he didn’t have to go out and buy some for himself. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/08/06/new-details-about-wilbur-rosss-businesses-point-to-pattern-of-grifting/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 11 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said: It is difficult to imagine the possibility that a man like Ross, who Forbes estimates is worth some $700 million, might steal a few million from one of his business partners. Unless you have heard enough stories about Ross. Two former WL Ross colleagues remember the commerce secretary taking handfuls of Sweet’N Low packets from a nearby restaurant, so he didn’t have to go out and buy some for himself. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/08/06/new-details-about-wilbur-rosss-businesses-point-to-pattern-of-grifting/ True story: The Spot Coffee in Amherst, near where my parents live, keeps the Splenda behind the counter so that people don't steal it. The Spot Coffee near where I live, and the one near where I work, both of which are in Buffalo, do not do this. Hmmm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 16 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said: It is difficult to imagine the possibility that a man like Ross, who Forbes estimates is worth some $700 million, might steal a few million from one of his business partners. Unless you have heard enough stories about Ross. Two former WL Ross colleagues remember the commerce secretary taking handfuls of Sweet’N Low packets from a nearby restaurant, so he didn’t have to go out and buy some for himself. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/08/06/new-details-about-wilbur-rosss-businesses-point-to-pattern-of-grifting/ Wilbur. Sugar packets. Ross, one letter off from Hoss. They. THEY!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 Thrifty. It's called thrifty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Doohickie said: Thrifty. It's called thrifty. Cheap . It's called cheap . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 1 hour ago, PASabreFan said: Wilbur. Sugar packets. Ross, one letter off from Hoss. They. THEY!!!!! Woof! squirrel! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 YESSSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 18 minutes ago, darksabre said: YESSSS WOOF!!!!! Wilbur ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 7, 2018 Report Share Posted August 7, 2018 I can't believe Wilbur has 60 posts. That's like 420 human posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 26, 2020 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 Maybe we should change his nickname form Ol Sugar Packets to Grim Reaper: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-25/billionaires-want-workers-coronavirus The damages of keeping the economy closed as it is could be worse than losing a few more people,” said Golisano Wut? ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 The rich and powerful have been putting other people's lives at risk to protect and increase their pile of beans since before we killed our last woolly mammoth. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 Honest, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 27 minutes ago, dudacek said: The rich and powerful have been putting other people's lives at risk to protect and increase their pile of beans since before we killed our last woolly mammoth. Sad truth. Too many people are prioritizing money over people. It’s been that way as long as trade has been around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 That article, and some of the comments upthread, rely on an assumption that isn't supported by anything OSP said: that OSP's comments are motivated by self-interest, not by concern for the population generally. I think it's much more likely that OSP's point was that the country generally -- not the wealthy -- will be better off if people get back to work more quickly, even if there is some loss of life due to the virus that would've been avoided if we all stayed home. It's a valid point to make, and one that many others have been making recently. We shouldn't pretend that this economic shutdown won't result in terrible consequences for millions of people. At the very least it should spur an honest cost-benefit conversation without people immediately assuming that OSP is looking at this like Mr. Burns would. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, nfreeman said: That article, and some of the comments upthread, rely on an assumption that isn't supported by anything OSP said: that OSP's comments are motivated by self-interest, not by concern for the population generally. I think it's much more likely that OSP's point was that the country generally -- not the wealthy -- will be better off if people get back to work more quickly, even if there is some loss of life due to the virus that would've been avoided if we all stayed home. It's a valid point to make, and one that many others have been making recently. We shouldn't pretend that this economic shutdown won't result in terrible consequences for millions of people. At the very least it should spur an honest cost-benefit conversation without people immediately assuming that OSP is looking at this like Mr. Burns would. On the contrary, with lives on the line, you cannot have this conversation without considering the possibility that Golisano and others like him are doing exactly that. History is rife with examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 Cost benefit when the costs on one side is lives lost and the other side is economic health. Or prioritizing monetary health over physical health. The roots in that certainly lie in greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 21 minutes ago, Weave said: Cost benefit when the costs on one side is lives lost and the other side is economic health. Or prioritizing monetary health over physical health. The roots in that certainly lie in greed. I don't think it's as black-and-white as this though. When people lose jobs and can't find work, there are significant increases in addiction, family breakups, depression and a host of other destructive consequences that also result in increased mortality. 25 minutes ago, dudacek said: On the contrary, with lives on the line, you cannot have this conversation without considering the possibility that Golisano and others like him are doing exactly that. History is rife with examples. Well, certainly we can consider that possibility. But using that possibility -- especially when there are also many non-billionaires asking these questions -- to shut down a debate over important issues that affect the entire country isn't wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, nfreeman said: I don't think it's as black-and-white as this though. When people lose jobs and can't find work, there are significant increases in addiction, family breakups, depression and a host of other destructive consequences that also result in increased mortality. And these also would require action to mitigate. What other reason would we choose not to do this other than it would cost us more money? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 10 minutes ago, nfreeman said: I don't think it's as black-and-white as this though. When people lose jobs and can't find work, there are significant increases in addiction, family breakups, depression and a host of other destructive consequences that also result in increased mortality. Well, certainly we can consider that possibility. But using that possibility -- especially when there are also many non-billionaires asking these questions -- to shut down a debate over important issues that affect the entire country isn't wise. It shouldn't shut down debate, only inform it. As to the bolded, have you noticed how these things tend to become issues for the comfortable only when their comfort is threatened? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Weave said: And these also would require action to mitigate. What other reason would we choose not to do this other than it would cost us more money? I think the answer here is that the efficacy of programs that are designed to mitigate those destructive consequences is pretty limited, so you're not really going to be able to meaningfully reduce the societal price that would be inflicted by a huge increase in joblessness. 1 minute ago, dudacek said: It shouldn't shut down debate, only inform it. As to the bolded, have you noticed how these things tend to become issues for the comfortable only when their comfort is threatened? In fact I haven't noticed that, although I have noticed that these types of assumptions and insinuations about people's motives and character do tend to surface, regrettably, in these types of conversations. To the immediate point, I don't expect that OSP's comfort is at much if at all threatened by the current economic upheaval -- but I do think that OSP, given his age, is much more vulnerable to the risks presented by the virus to his physical well-being than to the risks to his economic comfort -- and that he's well aware of those relative vulnerabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, nfreeman said: I think the answer here is that the efficacy of programs that are designed to mitigate those destructive consequences is pretty limited, so you're not really going to be able to meaningfully reduce the societal price that would be inflicted by a huge increase In joblessness. And you think that these societal consequences would be less after the loss of several million of our friends, children, spouses, and siblings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Weave said: And you think that these societal consequences would be less after the loss of several million of our friends, children, spouses, and siblings? First, I don't think there has been any kind of established conclusion that the virus is likely to cause death on that scale. Second, the key question is the loss of life that would result from reopening the economy relative to the loss of life that would result from continuing as we are now. And in calculating the 2nd half of that equation, the increases in mortality from the factors I mentioned that result from joblessness have to be taken into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, nfreeman said: First, I don't think there has been any kind of established conclusion that the virus is likely to cause death on that scale. Second, the key question is the loss of life that would result from reopening the economy relative to the loss of life that would result from continuing as we are now. And in calculating the 2nd half of that equation, the increases in mortality from the factors I mentioned that result from joblessness have to be taken into account. Numbers of deaths in the millions absolutely are the projections being made if we cannot flatten the curve. I’m honestly surprised you haven’t come across these numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.