Thankyou for the speech because it provided not many, but a few that I can use in my con debate side. My current debate stressed more of the fact that it would cause more corruption in those people that caused this, but changing the blame to bankers is something I wont do. I could get destroyed by Brian on this, he would just have to bring of examples of CEOs doing this. I have 3 of CEOs causing these problems, so you had special pleading there (this is helpful to people doing the rebuttal, so your lucky if you looked). You were also correct on the point that the government CAN'T change their pay, but not entirely. THe government is able to place taxes on public comapnies or groups, so a tax could be placed on their pay, you sort of contradicted yourself when you said that wouldnt work, but you could still do it, and later saying you couldnt do anything. Just wanted to criticize you because its fun.
I looked up historical debt-to-GDP ratios of the United States. I found that it peaked 109% during World War II. Then it went down to around 50% and now the debt-to-GDP ratio is just above 90%. These numbers are important because they show us that if we do not do something to accomplish the long term goal of lowering debt, we will be in the position of Greece with adebt-to-GDP ratio of around 120%. The way we can accomplish the long-term goal is to (for pro) balance the budget by cutting spending and raising taxes. For con, I will say that jobs are more important because they ensure the success of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc (in payroll taxes).
Which CEOs have committed fraud. I looked up CEOs who have committed fraud and I came up with the CEO of Countrywide (bankers). Therefore, Mr. J was not wrong on the fact that people are mad because bankers commit fraud. Also, isn't it true that if government puts a tax on huge bonuses CEOs are being given, there will still be attempts at giving CEOs huge amounts of money under the table.
It basically says that people are taking advantage of sports in the way of taking the innocence away. By this i mean that people create to much political contentions in the olympics. It give examples like
-cancelations of because of WWI -cancelations of because of WWII - and cancelations in Munich
I already have this article so i am pretty sure i will just use this to get more evidence.
Comments
Neil To lower the GDP of countries you could point out real money consumers of the country (like the war with afganistan, or a lot of the other debate topics) and you could say that we need to stop this. I don't know if this would go in your pro or con because, to tell you the truth, i don't get your topic.
Alec HEALTHCARE ok well since this is the LAST BLOG :) I'm juts kind of going to go over the health care issue
there are over 35 million people in America without health insurance, this new health care bill will give all those people health insurance.1. pass healthcare reform
here is the beginning part of my need issue
A. health care is too expensive
1. 2.2 trillion dollars spent on healthcare in 2007
2. healthcare cost perfected to rise to 25% of GDP in 2025 and 49% in 2082
3. US spends 52% more per person then norway, the next most costly nation
B.limits on coverage
1. 32 million americans lack health insurance
2. preexisting conditions
3. gender discrimination
4. no annual or life time caps on healthcare coverage
C. insurance industry overhaul
1. federal government would be more involved in regulating insurance companies
2. lower premiums
3. preventive care
hope that helps give you an idea on why health care should be passed
comment
for : DKP (Dhruv Ketan Patel)
I'm just a little curious. our oral checkpoint is in like four days and you are posting new articles you found. i was just wandering if you have gotten started on your speech. if not you should hurry.
also people should hurry up and blog because its our last one and only three people besides me have blogged and its 9:25 on Thursday night
and also before i go
ONLY 2 HOURS AND 35 MINUTES UNTIL IRON MAN 2 AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Mr. Jarrell's Statement about Afghanistan Morgan Falasca
I agree with the statement that when we pull out too quickly everything we worked and fought for will collapse, just like in 1980 with the Soviets. We have a commitment with Afghanistan and we should not let them down. Like I have said so many times, we are good allies with Afghanistan and we went in Afghanitan to help their government to be overthrown and train their people and of course, kill those Al Qaedas and Talibans (duh!) What we are learning now in history class, Americas foreign policy is America saying that we are going to help you, and we are going to be good friends with you. So if we pull out, like we have done before many times, it defeats the purpose of the foreign policy. This time, I believe should be different. We all know that if withdraw now, it would never solve the problem of terrorism and they will attack us again. This time, maybe even more harsh. I do not believe we should withdraw. We need to finish what we started and accomplish our goals. We have a commitment with Afghanistan and as an American, I believe we should keep our policy true and help Afghanistan and defeat the Al Qaedas and Talibans as much as we can. We are talking about terrorism here people!!! :)
Mr. Jarrell's statement about global warming is raising energy costs
Kasey
Ok so i agree with this statement. With the cap and trade system energy costs are going to go up 15%- 20%, and the senate estimated increasing $800-$1,300 by 2015. One wayis by taxing and the government say they will give it back. When will they give it back, it seems like that to help the world and the economy they need to take our money then give it back when the problems are solved. When will that be, no body even knows. If the government makes it seem like they need it more right now then us why should we trust them, how can we when the bill has already been passed and we haven't gotten any money back.
Thomas Balance the Budget Pro p/w Basically the plan for the pro side is to gradually raise taxes coupled with spending cuts. Another factor in this plan is that it will take a long time. it will work though. As long as congress keeps the cuts and taxes at a minimal so the economic growth and budget can take the cuts. The taxes will provide more income. The outlays and the revenue will gradually balance. Con: im afraid that there is a flaw in the plan. a very crushing fail. the cuts and freezes in spending will ultimately result in job loss. yes, there is a problem with spending, but it isn't with congress. it is in the people. when the recession hit, instead of going about their normal lives, people panicked. they kept their money in their wallets, and refrain from buying. money circulating is good for economy. every economist knows that. no money, no jobs, no business, no ultimate profit. the same goes with taxing. unless that it is necessary, if you tax it, people will use less. by trying to save the economy, you are hurting it. this will not solve the problem, it will just add fuel to the fire. -- therefore, i have to agree with the argument that J gave in class, con is usually easier to argue.
Criticism Dhruv: if im right, it would make sense to cancel the Olympics because most of the world is busy fighting a war. The nations don't have time to mess around with sports because they are using their resources to fight.
So today i thought i'd talk about both sides of my debate. first i'll start with my pro. well i did so more research on recycling nuclear waste and it turns out that the waste can be used as fuel to power a part of the nuclear reactor. this process is already used in France. The United States can apply this to the new reactors that are to be built soon.
Soooooo thats pro and heres con
So in my outline from last debate i briefly mentioned windmills. but today i have a little more. So i was looking around the internet, using Advance Search. I found out that electric companies may place there wind mills in the ocean. right now its experimental but if we were expand this idea i think we can achieve something.
So Dhruv Need some water? k so theres a problem with the Olympics because of wars and other things that that countries dont agree with so what do think is going to happen if it happens again. what do think will happen?
okay so i read emilys blog from last week where she had to right the practical and workable part, and i agree with everyone else who critisezed her. i really kinda have no idea what shes talkin about and where shes going with that. i think she's thinking that there really isn't much of a plan for our debate, or at least not many plans, or smart plans have come up. so instead i think ill just respond to the quote or arguement mr.j said in class the other day. so first of all i only agree with mr.j in certain parts of the arguement. I do agree that when he says the biggest problem we have is that we have a congress that doesn't work. That's the biggest problem, even though we do have the other problems connected to the congress not getting along like foreighn policy, or the economy, etc. but if we want to figure out all of those things, then we need to have a congress that acually works, because right now the democrats and republicans are just pointing fingers at eachother. Nothing is going to be solved if all were doing is yelling at eachother, trying to do things for our own selves, not agreeing on anything, and trying to do better then the other. The part where i disagree is where he states that we have to blame republicans, and that they can't solve anything. They just don't get along with the democrats. Many people seem to argue that. They seem to sometimes say that the republicans are very slow at things and only want to prove they can do things better then democrats, or do what the democrats are doing. They say that they try to help obama, but no one s listening. But their not the only ones who have said that before. the democrats have also said similar things. No one can just blame either the republicans or the democrats, because if you really look at it, their both to blame. Republicans are better at certain things, while the democrats are better at others. Their not going to agree on anything. they've both made mistakes, and no matter what, their both going to be critized.
to thomas's critiscm to drhuv:
why would we cancel the olympics when we've been doing it for so so so long? even though maybe some coutrys could be in conflict, wouldn't the olmpycs kind of help that out, and relax things out a bit? i don't know though. I'm sure counrtys have been in conflict when the olmpycs happened before, and that shouldn't stop anyone from playing the games, after all, no ones there to fight with a country their having problems with. That's not what the olympics are about right? They're there to play the game and beat some world records right? :)
Emily Mae Kaplitz Democrats to blame I am having a lot of problems still with special pleading i don't know how to make it not special pleading. my speech just sounds bad.
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To Haddon Why did you post on mr J?
This week I found the goals of going to Afghanistan. It was a knew source called goal in Afghanistan. It was a good source. Their wasn't any special pleading. I went through prop and it turned out to be good their too. One of the goals was to stay in Afghanistan because we have to stay their too make sure that the Taliban GROUP won't come and make a terrorist attack. That was Obamas main goal in Afghanistan. Another one was that he wanted Afghanistan to know that they are going to have to take care of their own security. so they are the 2 ain goals.
Emily You have to stop saying help. Their are so many things you can look up too say that democrats are too blame and the same thing with republicans. You have to go on the internet and look up differnt things. You can't give up.
Bryan The government should reduce CEO pay Practical and Workable
PRO I’m in the process of changing the plan for my pro, so i'm also in the process of changing my pro practical and workable... My plan is to change the behavior of the three main departments that control CEO pay. The compensation consultants hired by boards, compensation committees, and institutional shareholders. In order to change the behavior of compensation consultants, you should make a committee composed of shareholders to decide who should be the compensation consultants. This would solve the problem because the extreme bonuses CEOs are paid would disappear and CEOS would be paid like other workers, for the work they do. To fix the problem of compensation committees, shareholders should have the power to vote members off the board, and members should have no conflicts or business relation with the CEO. This can be done because the shareholders propose the members themselves. It would solve the problem because the members wouldn’t be tempted to give the CEOs high pay because it effects their own, ore low pay because they have a conflict with them. Also we should give shareholders the power to vote, and make CEOs tell their employers why they deserve certain packages. It would solve the problem because if you give shareholders the power to decide CEO pay, they will be happy with CEO pay
CON The pro sides plan is neither practical nor workable. Not very many plans presented by the pro side will be practical. It is difficult to come up with a plan that can be done and solve the problem. It is not possible, or simple, to simply cut a CEOs pay suddenly. The plans also aren't workable. One of the main problems with the pay of CEOs is that they are all trying to get more, and they turn to extreme options such as fraud. If you take away their pay, they will only get greedier. It will in no way stop them form committing fraud, only increase the chances of them doing it. If you limit the pay of CEOs, you are doing nothing to help fix the "problem".
COMMENTS J on his speech I don’t know if this is a viable point, but you were saying that the crash of the economy wasn’t the CEOs fault, which is true, but if we’re trying to improve it, why would leaving the CEOs with high pay help to decrease the economy’s debt? You talked about the techniques that bankers used to commit fraud, but don’t most ceos also do that?
I'll give you the basic plan, please critizise (excuse spelling) me so I can build from it
Pro-
I say global warming is too much of a problem. If we keep using fossil we will destory the enviornment. My plan is to balace out the energy sources. We use some fossil, some renewable, and some nuclear. This will cut global warming.
Con- My argument is that nuclear reactors will be to expensive. I add the non-prolifiration act as an example. I say that we cant calculate the cost for nuclear reactors. Well we can for the reactors, but in my argument I said that the cost of dealing with the waste is unknown. We are also in debt.
I found that the average pay for the top 100 CEOS in europe is 4.3 millionb. In Japan it is $543,000. German Company CEOs make 800,000 a year. The difference in dollar value is incorporated here. THis is extremely valuable to my con-side debate, this showing that CEOs dont need large paychecks to be sucessful. Nintendo, which is one of the 3 major video game companies, is run by a japanese CEO, when Japanese CEOs are usually paid only 4-500,000 a year. ANother example is Shell, which is an european company dealing in the collection and distribution of petroleum products, or oil.
First
ReplyDeleteTo Mr. Jarrel about the speech
ReplyDeleteThankyou for the speech because it provided not many, but a few that I can use in my con debate side. My current debate stressed more of the fact that it would cause more corruption in those people that caused this, but changing the blame to bankers is something I wont do. I could get destroyed by Brian on this, he would just have to bring of examples of CEOs doing this. I have 3 of CEOs causing these problems, so you had special pleading there (this is helpful to people doing the rebuttal, so your lucky if you looked). You were also correct on the point that the government CAN'T change their pay, but not entirely. THe government is able to place taxes on public comapnies or groups, so a tax could be placed on their pay, you sort of contradicted yourself when you said that wouldnt work, but you could still do it, and later saying you couldnt do anything. Just wanted to criticize you because its fun.
Neil
ReplyDeleteBudget
I looked up historical debt-to-GDP ratios of the United States. I found that it peaked 109% during World War II. Then it went down to around 50% and now the debt-to-GDP ratio is just above 90%. These numbers are important because they show us that if we do not do something to accomplish the long term goal of lowering debt, we will be in the position of Greece with adebt-to-GDP ratio of around 120%. The way we can accomplish the long-term goal is to (for pro) balance the budget by cutting spending and raising taxes. For con, I will say that jobs are more important because they ensure the success of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc (in payroll taxes).
Neil
ReplyDeleteCriticism for Haddon
Which CEOs have committed fraud. I looked up CEOs who have committed fraud and I came up with the CEO of Countrywide (bankers). Therefore, Mr. J was not wrong on the fact that people are mad because bankers commit fraud. Also, isn't it true that if government puts a tax on huge bonuses CEOs are being given, there will still be attempts at giving CEOs huge amounts of money under the table.
Dhruv K. Patel
ReplyDeleteOlympics Debate
I found an article called "sports and politics should be separated
http://www.rajputbrotherhood.com/knowledge-hub/articles/sports-and-politics-should-be-separated.html
It basically says that people are taking advantage of sports in the way of taking the innocence away. By this i mean that people create to much political contentions in the olympics. It give examples like
-cancelations of because of WWI
-cancelations of because of WWII
- and cancelations in Munich
I already have this article so i am pretty sure i will just use this to get more evidence.
Comments
Neil
To lower the GDP of countries you could point out real money consumers of the country
(like the war with afganistan, or a lot of the other debate topics) and you could say that we need to stop this. I don't know if this would go in your pro or con because, to tell you the truth, i don't get your topic.
Alec
ReplyDeleteHEALTHCARE
ok well since this is the LAST BLOG :) I'm juts kind of going to go over the health care issue
there are over 35 million people in America without health insurance, this new health care bill will give all those people health insurance.1. pass healthcare reform
here is the beginning part of my need issue
A. health care is too expensive
1. 2.2 trillion dollars spent on healthcare in 2007
2. healthcare cost perfected to rise to 25% of GDP in 2025 and 49% in 2082
3. US spends 52% more per person then norway, the next most costly nation
B.limits on coverage
1. 32 million americans lack health insurance
2. preexisting conditions
3. gender discrimination
4. no annual or life time caps on healthcare coverage
C. insurance industry overhaul
1. federal government would be more involved in regulating insurance companies
2. lower premiums
3. preventive care
hope that helps give you an idea on why health care should be passed
comment
for : DKP (Dhruv Ketan Patel)
I'm just a little curious. our oral checkpoint is in like four days and you are posting new articles you found. i was just wandering if you have gotten started on your speech. if not you should hurry.
also people should hurry up and blog because its our last one and only three people besides me have blogged and its 9:25 on Thursday night
and also before i go
ONLY 2 HOURS AND 35 MINUTES UNTIL IRON MAN 2 AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Mr. Jarrell's Statement about Afghanistan
ReplyDeleteMorgan Falasca
I agree with the statement that when we pull out too quickly everything we worked and fought for will collapse, just like in 1980 with the Soviets. We have a commitment with Afghanistan and we should not let them down. Like I have said so many times, we are good allies with Afghanistan and we went in Afghanitan to help their government to be overthrown and train their people and of course, kill those Al Qaedas and Talibans (duh!) What we are learning now in history class, Americas foreign policy is America saying that we are going to help you, and we are going to be good friends with you. So if we pull out, like we have done before many times, it defeats the purpose of the foreign policy. This time, I believe should be different. We all know that if withdraw now, it would never solve the problem of terrorism and they will attack us again. This time, maybe even more harsh. I do not believe we should withdraw. We need to finish what we started and accomplish our goals. We have a commitment with Afghanistan and as an American, I believe we should keep our policy true and help Afghanistan and defeat the Al Qaedas and Talibans as much as we can. We are talking about terrorism here people!!! :)
Mr. Jarrell's statement about global warming is raising energy costs
ReplyDeleteKasey
Ok so i agree with this statement. With the cap and trade system energy costs are going to go up 15%- 20%, and the senate estimated increasing $800-$1,300 by 2015. One wayis by taxing and the government say they will give it back. When will they give it back, it seems like that to help the world and the economy they need to take our money then give it back when the problems are solved. When will that be, no body even knows. If the government makes it seem like they need it more right now then us why should we trust them, how can we when the bill has already been passed and we haven't gotten any money back.
Thomas
ReplyDeleteBalance the Budget
Pro p/w
Basically the plan for the pro side is to gradually raise taxes coupled with spending cuts. Another factor in this plan is that it will take a long time. it will work though. As long as congress keeps the cuts and taxes at a minimal so the economic growth and budget can take the cuts. The taxes will provide more income. The outlays and the revenue will gradually balance.
Con: im afraid that there is a flaw in the plan. a very crushing fail. the cuts and freezes in spending will ultimately result in job loss. yes, there is a problem with spending, but it isn't with congress. it is in the people. when the recession hit, instead of going about their normal lives, people panicked. they kept their money in their wallets, and refrain from buying. money circulating is good for economy. every economist knows that. no money, no jobs, no business, no ultimate profit. the same goes with taxing. unless that it is necessary, if you tax it, people will use less. by trying to save the economy, you are hurting it. this will not solve the problem, it will just add fuel to the fire. -- therefore, i have to agree with the argument that J gave in class, con is usually easier to argue.
Criticism Dhruv:
if im right, it would make sense to cancel the Olympics because most of the world is busy fighting a war. The nations don't have time to mess around with sports because they are using their resources to fight.
James
ReplyDeleteNuclear Reactors
So today i thought i'd talk about both sides of my debate. first i'll start with my pro. well i did so more research on recycling nuclear waste and it turns out that the waste can be used as fuel to power a part of the nuclear reactor. this process is already used in France. The United States can apply this to the new reactors that are to be built soon.
Soooooo thats pro and heres con
So in my outline from last debate i briefly mentioned windmills. but today i have a little more. So i was looking around the internet, using Advance Search. I found out that electric companies may place there wind mills in the ocean. right now its experimental but if we were expand this idea i think we can achieve something.
So Dhruv Need some water? k so theres a problem with the Olympics because of wars and other things that that countries dont agree with so what do think is going to happen if it happens again. what do think will happen?
45 minutes until IRON MAN 2
democrats are to blame
ReplyDeleteeva
okay so i read emilys blog from last week where she had to right the practical and workable part, and i agree with everyone else who critisezed her. i really kinda have no idea what shes talkin about and where shes going with that. i think she's thinking that there really isn't much of a plan for our debate, or at least not many plans, or smart plans have come up. so instead i think ill just respond to the quote or arguement mr.j said in class the other day.
so first of all i only agree with mr.j in certain parts of the arguement. I do agree that when he says the biggest problem we have is that we have a congress that doesn't work. That's the biggest problem, even though we do have the other problems connected to the congress not getting along like foreighn policy, or the economy, etc. but if we want to figure out all of those things, then we need to have a congress that acually works, because right now the democrats and republicans are just pointing fingers at eachother. Nothing is going to be solved if all were doing is yelling at eachother, trying to do things for our own selves, not agreeing on anything, and trying to do better then the other. The part where i disagree is where he states that we have to blame republicans, and that they can't solve anything. They just don't get along with the democrats. Many people seem to argue that. They seem to sometimes say that the republicans are very slow at things and only want to prove they can do things better then democrats, or do what the democrats are doing. They say that they try to help obama, but no one s listening. But their not the only ones who have said that before. the democrats have also said similar things. No one can just blame either the republicans or the democrats, because if you really look at it, their both to blame. Republicans are better at certain things, while the democrats are better at others. Their not going to agree on anything. they've both made mistakes, and no matter what, their both going to be critized.
to thomas's critiscm to drhuv:
why would we cancel the olympics when we've been doing it for so so so long? even though maybe some coutrys could be in conflict, wouldn't the olmpycs kind of help that out, and relax things out a bit? i don't know though. I'm sure counrtys have been in conflict when the olmpycs happened before, and that shouldn't stop anyone from playing the games, after all, no ones there to fight with a country their having problems with. That's not what the olympics are about right? They're there to play the game and beat some world records right? :)
Emily Mae Kaplitz
ReplyDeleteDemocrats to blame
I am having a lot of problems still with special pleading i don't know how to make it not special pleading. my speech just sounds bad.
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To Haddon
Why did you post on mr J?
Jaxx Ottinger/Bossman/Whitey J
ReplyDeleteThis week I found the goals of going to Afghanistan. It was a knew source called goal in Afghanistan. It was a good source. Their wasn't any special pleading. I went through prop and it turned out to be good their too. One of the goals was to stay in Afghanistan because we have to stay their too make sure that the Taliban GROUP won't come and make a terrorist attack. That was Obamas main goal in Afghanistan. Another one was that he wanted Afghanistan to know that they are going to have to take care of their own security. so they are the 2 ain goals.
Emily
You have to stop saying help. Their are so many things you can look up too say that democrats are too blame and the same thing with republicans. You have to go on the internet and look up differnt things. You can't give up.
Whhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa
Bryan
ReplyDeleteThe government should reduce CEO pay
Practical and Workable
PRO
I’m in the process of changing the plan for my pro, so i'm also in the process of changing my pro practical and workable...
My plan is to change the behavior of the three main departments that control CEO pay. The compensation consultants hired by boards, compensation committees, and institutional shareholders.
In order to change the behavior of compensation consultants, you should make a committee composed of shareholders to decide who should be the compensation consultants. This would solve the problem because the extreme bonuses CEOs are paid would disappear and CEOS would be paid like other workers, for the work they do.
To fix the problem of compensation committees, shareholders should have the power to vote members off the board, and members should have no conflicts or business relation with the CEO. This can be done because the shareholders propose the members themselves. It would solve the problem because the members wouldn’t be tempted to give the CEOs high pay because it effects their own, ore low pay because they have a conflict with them.
Also we should give shareholders the power to vote, and make CEOs tell their employers why they deserve certain packages. It would solve the problem because if you give shareholders the power to decide CEO pay, they will be happy with CEO pay
CON
The pro sides plan is neither practical nor workable. Not very many plans presented by the pro side will be practical. It is difficult to come up with a plan that can be done and solve the problem. It is not possible, or simple, to simply cut a CEOs pay suddenly. The plans also aren't workable. One of the main problems with the pay of CEOs is that they are all trying to get more, and they turn to extreme options such as fraud. If you take away their pay, they will only get greedier. It will in no way stop them form committing fraud, only increase the chances of them doing it. If you limit the pay of CEOs, you are doing nothing to help fix the "problem".
COMMENTS
J on his speech
I don’t know if this is a viable point, but you were saying that the crash of the economy wasn’t the CEOs fault, which is true, but if we’re trying to improve it, why would leaving the CEOs with high pay help to decrease the economy’s debt?
You talked about the techniques that bankers used to commit fraud, but don’t most ceos also do that?
hai
ReplyDeletePro-
I'll give you the basic plan, please critizise (excuse spelling) me so I can build from it
Pro-
I say global warming is too much of a problem. If we keep using fossil we will destory the enviornment. My plan is to balace out the energy sources. We use some fossil, some renewable, and some nuclear. This will cut global warming.
Con- My argument is that nuclear reactors will be to expensive. I add the non-prolifiration act as an example. I say that we cant calculate the cost for nuclear reactors. Well we can for the reactors, but in my argument I said that the cost of dealing with the waste is unknown. We are also in debt.
Kill me...
@-- Jaxx
ReplyDeletegood job in realizing the talaban is a group! ;)
a problem with your source...
from what you summarize in the website,
we go into afghan to stop them from attacking us...
we attack them to make them not want to attack us...
PROBLEM ALERT
and the 2nd goal, the USA will take care of the government in afghan, we dont need to find out if they will because we know they cant.
European Pay
ReplyDeleteHaddon
I found that the average pay for the top 100 CEOS in europe is 4.3 millionb. In Japan it is $543,000. German Company CEOs make 800,000 a year. The difference in dollar value is incorporated here. THis is extremely valuable to my con-side debate, this showing that CEOs dont need large paychecks to be sucessful. Nintendo, which is one of the 3 major video game companies, is run by a japanese CEO, when Japanese CEOs are usually paid only 4-500,000 a year. ANother example is Shell, which is an european company dealing in the collection and distribution of petroleum products, or oil.
Last comment
ReplyDeleteJordana Rosenberg
ReplyDeleteInternational Sports
Do More Harm than Good
Week of May 10th - May 15th
Over the past week I have found one article from Olympics.org it had very simple goals of the Olympics, to unite countries from allover the world.
Sorry I'm posting so late, I have an excuses but you probably don't care.
To Emily,
As I said before in pro make the democrats sound bad and the republicans sound good (or well?) In con make them both sound good and bad.