FrankWheeler

I'm not sure you do get it. What are they going to be protesting? The administration's policy on using a different test? It was stated in the article that the administration could have been using the World Health Organization (WHO) test this whole time but have chosen not to. It's not because of a lack of available tests, there are tests available from WHO to use. The administration won't do it.

Weren't you complaining about videos in another thread?

Drink better beer

Is this socialism?

The first quote was Landlords

I went back through and read the last few pages again, who is fiercely defending Bernie's worker shareholder plan? Here are comments from some people who seem to be supporting Sanders. and and and

Good point, lots of focus on one policy that will never pass through congress.

It's actually pretty hard and rare...The percentage of firms to achieve sales of $100 million or more has remained pretty much the same since 1980, at 0.04% (that's 4 hundredths of one percent). (Of course that is counting all businesses that start up, which some posters say you can't do...?) According to IRS stats from 2013, out of 5,887,804 corporations only 18,504 had receipts over $100 million (0.3%). But I believe in you!

You can ask the employees when they get the stock if they would like to do those things?

They are both just tools for wealth redistribution.

I am homeless and unemployed so not a corporate lawyer but generally shareholders are not personally liablefor the debts of the corporation.

Because you said these businesses happen all the time? And it’s not true? why are there small business exemptions for minimum wage?

Why would certain businesses be excluded? Yes, why try to make policy that is informed by facts and stats.

Not sure the stats on this but it does seem pretty rare. I found this quoted in a book with references but haven't seen the actual reference so it could be wrong: The percentage of firms to achieve sales of $100 million or more has remained pretty much the same since 1980, at 0.04% (that's 4 hundredths of one percent).

Here's something for you guys to consider. Under the current economic system you probably aren't going to start a $100 million company or know anybody that will.

I don't think he would have been impacted by Sanders' plan but he would have been by minimum wage laws.

It's a slippery slope.

Why is it fine? You are taking money away from the shareholders in either case. The minimum wage law impacts small businesses more than Sanders' shareholder plan would.

Yes, first you give employees minimum wage and then provide them an stake in the success of the company?

Maryland has 2 RBs invited. But I still don't think it means all that much to the talent level of the defense. Arkansas has 3 defensive players invited and they were way more worser than Nebraska.