Because all "executive's" do with their money is put it in the bank.* They don't ever buy stuff that was made by workers from other companies.

* They also never put it in an actual bank or credit union, where it can be used to enable the institution to make loans through fractional reserve banking, which in a way DOES "create money".

Minimum wage increases powered the growth in the economy? And here I thought it was the industry taking over for Europe and Japan's destroyed infrastructure.

It is luxury. First world problems.

Oh, and if you live your whole life like that, you're either lazy, foolish, or mentally disabled. The latter category, at least, is deserving of public assistance.

Yes, because I'm sure the money to pay their salaries will come out of the fat cat small business owner's bottomless pockets. Instead of ours, of course. We shouldn't pay any more taxes, just those who make more than us (or we think do).

Have you? We're constantly being told we have to allow people to come here illegally because legal residents and citizens "won't do" the work they do. That indicates there is work available, from the same people who claim the minimum wage must be increased. Now mind you, just because I don't think the minimum wage is a good idea doesn't mean I don't think people should, in general, be paid more than that. I just don't think the government should be making that decision. Unless you and the other genius who responded can show me a law or de facto condition that keeps people from quitting a job for one that pays more, let me know. And don't tell me "unemployment", because the current unemployment is caused by the same people who claim to have the solution. Making employers have an even fatter payroll is going to do the opposite of creating jobs.

No, that wouldn't be logical at all. A bell curve would also fit that argument.

Let's put it this way: the President, shortly after taking office on a promise of not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250K, raised tobacco taxes to help pay for CHIP. Besides raising funds, the claimed benefit would be to stop smoking. Ignoring the fact that those are two conflicting missions, would you say that REDUCING taxes to zero would get EVERYONE smoking? That's similar to your argument. Obviously, the President and Congress agree with us that a behavior is discouraged by increasing expense. Companies can, and will, shrink their businesses and lay off employees if they believe it will make them more viable in the face of increased costs.

Sorry, but everyday people are not scientists, so they don't read papers. Every magazine, textbook, and newspaper reported "global cooling" for near a decade. And you wonder why people of my generation are skeptical of the "mainstream media"!

People of his mien come once a generation FFS.

Thank goodness for that. We don't need more condescending, stubborn, ineffective, vainglorious leaders like this one. He operated in an obstructed fashion for two years and all he accomplished was to insult everyone who wasn't a Democrat and sign an abomination of a "health care" law that takes the wealth and freedom of the people and gives it to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Oh, and kill a bunch of people with drones.

Most Americans don't know who Guy Fawkes was or what he did. Just sayin'...

He's not a liberal. A liberal would not force people to buy products from companies, or force private companies to pay employees more than their labor is worth, or make most effective firearms illegal, or hand out billions to corny corporations. That's called a "progressive."

Insightful? In 1980, the top rate was 70%. It dropped to 50%, then 38.5 (already less than the current Dems want), then 28%. And the inexorable Slashdot race to the bottom continues...

You're correct; the value of that governance goes up, because you have more to protect. That's why a PROPORTIONAL tax of x% from everyone, which GOES UP AS YOU EARN MORE, is the only "fair" system.

On the bright side, you can upgrade to business class. It removes those restrictions, comes with two static IP addresses, and you get a LOS guarantee. It's not very expensive, as long as you make sure they keep your cable TV on a separate residential bill. Their business VOIP is ridiculously expensive, though-- go with VOIPo or Vonage if you want that.

Even he probably isn't. I doubt he included the delivery charge. He may live in an area where you can choose an electricity provider different from the company that maintains the lines, which means the costs are split out on the bill. That being said, he probably is saving just a little money hosting at home-- but a lot less than indicated.

You have me beat. I ebayed my DEC 3000s years ago (one of them was the awesome 600S) when I finally got a "new" DS10L, which is still running my web site. It was really annoying how the feet on the 3000 would melt under the heat and smear grey goo everywhere.