RSS Feeds
Working women
1.
You're showing your true socialistic colors. And blaming Bush again. Get over it all. Let her spend her $ the way a true Capitalist wants.
2. So, some are richer than others. Surely there must have been a better hook for a column than a rich woman paying tons for a condo.
3. Well said comrade, lets all resent those who excel in life, build successful businesses and then have the gall to think there entitled to spend there money as they see fit, or in this case, have there widows spend there money as they see fit. God willing Mr Rutten, your article will bring us that much closer to the achievement of a socialist America built upon envy and resentment, I salute you sir.
4. Wah, wah, wah, Tim Rutten. You are pathetic!
5. Tim, YOU raised the issue and in the process, unjustly portrayed another person as a ridiculous figure. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? IF YOU WERE THE PRESIDENT, WHAT WILL YOU DO? Why don't you ask the lower 40% of China's citizens. Would they want to go back to Mao's egalitarian era so they won't have billionaires among them who spend their millions on limos and mansions?
6. Use of her name enticed people to read your column but it is patently unfair to her. This huge disparity in the distribution of wealth is indecent and requires every American's dedicated effort to rectify. What have YOU done about it?
7. The "point" of the piece (in response to crashman's question) is to illustrate the difference between the top 1% of income earners and those at the bottom. Nobody said this is Ms. Spellings' fault, just that it paints a picture most people can inderstand.
8. Candy Spelling is neither the problem nor the solution. What's the point of this opinion piece?
9. While your numbers may indeed be correct, they are selective and seek to protray this separation of wealth as if it just suddenly happened. These are long term trends, and the left side of the isle seemed to celebrate the great advancement of the trend during the 90's. See: http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/images/2006_trend_chart.gif When the CEO's and the rich got the richest: See: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/06/05/national/06HYPERA_GRAPHIC.html When the great wealth was destroyed: See: http://www.investors.com/images/editimg/issues01050707.gif
10. Jealous much?
Submitted by: Jealous, are you?
2. So, some are richer than others. Surely there must have been a better hook for a column than a rich woman paying tons for a condo.
Submitted by: Liveandletlive
3. Well said comrade, lets all resent those who excel in life, build successful businesses and then have the gall to think there entitled to spend there money as they see fit, or in this case, have there widows spend there money as they see fit. God willing Mr Rutten, your article will bring us that much closer to the achievement of a socialist America built upon envy and resentment, I salute you sir.
Submitted by: Capitalist Pigs
4. Wah, wah, wah, Tim Rutten. You are pathetic!
Submitted by: Fed Up with LA Times
5. Tim, YOU raised the issue and in the process, unjustly portrayed another person as a ridiculous figure. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? IF YOU WERE THE PRESIDENT, WHAT WILL YOU DO? Why don't you ask the lower 40% of China's citizens. Would they want to go back to Mao's egalitarian era so they won't have billionaires among them who spend their millions on limos and mansions?
Submitted by: Puzzled
6. Use of her name enticed people to read your column but it is patently unfair to her. This huge disparity in the distribution of wealth is indecent and requires every American's dedicated effort to rectify. What have YOU done about it?
Submitted by: John
7. The "point" of the piece (in response to crashman's question) is to illustrate the difference between the top 1% of income earners and those at the bottom. Nobody said this is Ms. Spellings' fault, just that it paints a picture most people can inderstand.
Submitted by: celtic1
8. Candy Spelling is neither the problem nor the solution. What's the point of this opinion piece?
Submitted by: crashman
9. While your numbers may indeed be correct, they are selective and seek to protray this separation of wealth as if it just suddenly happened. These are long term trends, and the left side of the isle seemed to celebrate the great advancement of the trend during the 90's. See: http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/images/2006_trend_chart.gif When the CEO's and the rich got the richest: See: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/06/05/national/06HYPERA_GRAPHIC.html When the great wealth was destroyed: See: http://www.investors.com/images/editimg/issues01050707.gif
Submitted by: forparity
10. Jealous much?
Submitted by: Matthew
ADVERTISEMENT
| - | Jonestown and 'confirmation bias' |
| - | Lincoln and the myth of 'Team of Rivals' |
| - | 'No' to Obama's experimental government |
ADVERTISEMENT