Obama's Attack on Achievers and Individual Rights

I agree that the pie is not static and I also believe that we cannot continue to rely of a select few to continue to increase the pie and not let them individually benefit from the increase they create.

Mark:

The problem with your position is that those on whom YOU wish to rely, can't or won't work to increase the pie, or don't have the ability to increase the pie.

It's just that simple. And those who do have the ability to increase the size of the pie, ain't gonna do it unless they benefit from the increase they create.

You seem to be of the belief that the pie will just increase through government intervention, ain't gonna happen. All the government does it TAKE, it does not produce. This has been proved over and over and over and over again in this world.

How many times must it be proved? How many countries must fall into horrific morasses of poverty and corruption for this fact to, finally, be driven home.

Must the entire world be a Zimbabwe, or North Korea, or even a China or Russia before we finally, really, understand this fact?

At the bottom is greed and envy. Let me ask you, would you rather be a "poor" person who has a home, a car, a tv, AC, and enough food to eat but who, when compared to other folks in your society are not as wealthy, or

would you prefer to be homeless, living in a cardboard shack with a dirt floor, without food or medicine but all others around you (except for the very, very few) are the same?

That is really the issue, and one which is clearly and unalterably borne out by the facts and the economic status of persons in various countries.

If the latter, then your own envy will be your downfall.

Bull @!$%#.. this is easily shown by the period of expanion we saw under bush when the median wage decreased when adjusted for inflation.
the disparity is never greater than it was in 1929
it didnt have to be this way.
they pretend thius is radical.. but in reagan days the tax on the top bracket was 70%
obama isnt even trying to raise it that much.
now bush droped capital gains tax to 15%.. you know how i say one of the problems with capitalism is that the more money you have the easier it is to make even more.. well Bush poured gas on that fire.
PEOPLE WITH MONEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EARN MORE THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE.
soros paid only 15% on 4 billion in earnings.
you probably paid in the 20's or higher.
Thats called cutting the biggest slices and giving them to the rich.
Did the median wage go up now the richest of us made so much more money?
you know the top 400 of us doubled their income under bush?

seriously

THE RIGHT DEPEND ON YORU IGNORANCE TO SPREAD THEIR DECEIT

It is a class war and they are stealing your pie.. and if your ignorant enough to keep listening to the guys that cuased this mess, god help you.

Joules:

Do me a favor buddy, I am going with you on the misspellings, but do we now have to deal with bold, etc as well?

Look, you know damn well that the marginal income tax rate during the Reagan years had almost nothing to do with the effective rate due to the number of credits and deductions which were available, you KNOW that yet you continue to disseminate information which is misleading.

The way out of any economic issues is not to "spread" the wealth, but to make the pie bigger and I gotta tell you, your wonderful government can't and won't do that, only the big bad rich guys can do that.

wmolaw

Is that before or after the big bad rich guys and corporations spread their wealth among a variety of off shore accounts while downsizing and/or outsourcing their labor force to Guatamala, Sri Lanka, Hondouras or any of the other $2 buck an hour economies?

Then they bitch about people who can't make enough to survive and have to turn to the govt (me) for assistance.

The wealth can't be spread when a $10. an hour wage is all one makes in a $20. an hour economy.

J.W.:

How do you stop "rich guys" and "corporations" from taking their wealth offshore?

Simple, make it more productive for them to have it here. Make sense?

Take Denmark for example, they have a very high marginal, personal, income tax rate. Know what their "corporate" rate of tax is? Much lower than ours. So, the result, everyone does everything through corporations, except those that can't afford to do so.

Result? Those without dough get screwed and those with dough don't. Sheesh, who woulda thunk it in a socialist country like Denmark. The same is true throughout Europe.

If a country doesn't keep it's capital in its country guess what, it tends to fall apart and decline. If it does keep its capital, then it grows. This is really, really simple stuff.

Want to have those jobs back in the USA, simple, give those companies tax breaks that will offset the savings they would realize by hiring off shore folks. Does that make too much sense?

One must look to incentives, for they work in all walks of life and business. You can't just try to force people to do that which is against their best interests, for they will find a way around it.

This fact of life is evident throughout those areas of this Country which understand how to secure business, and benefit by it.

wmolaw

I don't have a problem with rich guys and corporations taking their money out of the country, they are free to do so after they have paid their taxes like the rest of us. Perhaps "more productive" is a euphemism for tax free?

The problem with outsourcing livable wage work is that fewer and fewer people have the means to perform their function in our economy which is to consume lots of stuff. If a VAT ever becomes law in addition to our personal income tax there will be even less money available for all too many of us to spend on high priced foreign stuff.

It would be interesting to learn the total cost of, say, a pair of tennis shoes made in a $2. an hour or even $2. a day foreign economy that might sell here for $150. or more. I've seen $150. shirts being offered for sale here that were made in Malaysia. If manufacturers are saving big money having their stuff made abroad can we assume that $150. shirt from Malaysia or wherever might cost maybe $200. or $250 if it were made here? I would find that very hard to swallow.

I don't see why we should give tax break welfare to corporations as an incentive for them to do business. All it does is pass the increased tax burden onto me while the corporate profits are stashed off shore and maybe all too often tax free. By that line of reasoning I should get a comparable tax break in order to free up the money to buy.

Thanks for your reply

Want to keep the money here? Enforce trade agreements that live up to our social, environmental, and ethical standards.

wmolaw,

I thought you consevativews said small business was responsible for job creation. So by taxing the rich that can't spend the money and won't invest in start-ups that would put them out of business and supplying low interest loans to start-up companies the goveernment could stimulate the creation of millions of jobs. That would put the money back into OUR economy instead of offshore banks and shelters.

This attitude that the supporters of the rich have makes me sick. You think they got there without the infrastructure and labor WE provide? You don't think that those that benefit from the most from the stability and environment we all provide, owe something back to the system that provided it? Do you understand why you are thought of as selfish or as dupes?

The basic problem with socialism is that the primary focus is how to cut up the pie instead of how more pies can be made for the benefit of all.

Tim:

Small businesses are the engine of employment in this Country. And know what, Obama is screwing them to the wall. I know, I'm one of them. Are you?

Look, your envy is not pretty to see. I ain't "rich." And I am also not jealous of those that are. They have their own issues, many of which I would never want to have, no matter how much money I had.

Those that work for me don't make as much as I do, is that wrong? I invested my life savings, MY capital, I took the risk, signed the notes, mortgaged my house to get my business up and running. I gave them jobs, and they continue to work for me because it's a good place to work, and they are paid fairly in the market place.

They are welcome to leave anytime they wish. YOU are welcome to start a business where the employees are the ones to reap all of the profits, or whatever, if you wish. No one is stopping you from doing that. Why don't you do that? In fact, ANYONE is welcome to start such a business. Many have, in the past tried. The result wasn't exactly pretty.

The government has gone beyond the pale, IMO, as to what it has its tentacles into and what it does and provides. Have you ever read the CFR, have you ever even SEEN the CFR? It is a joke. Have you ever really seen the IRS Code?

Look, you are just yapping, frankly. If there is a definitive, constructive issue which you would like implemented, discuss it.

Socrates:

Exactly. That fact has been the strength of this Country over the last fifty years. When you look at the standing/wealth of the "poor" in this Country vis a vis the poor in other countries it is a joke. Read an article years ago where the "poor" in this Country were compared to the middle class in most Euro countries, and the poor in this Country came out on top in home ownership, square footage lived in, cars, air conditioning, tv's, etc., etc.

I do believe that, to a degree, we are a victim of our own success.

Joules:

Did you hear what Warren Buffet had to say about class warfare?

He was quoted recently as saying, "If this is class warfare, my class is winning."

I like a gracious winner, don't you?

wmolaw,

I am not talking about the individual that starts his own business and builds it into a profitable enterprise. Someone that had an idea and risked everthing to see it through. I am taling about those that come in to an established company and layoff thousands to get a temporary bump in the stock price, then sell their shares that they got as a bonus for laying off those people. I am talking about the Paris Hiltons of the world that have done nothing to earn their wealth yet have the money to screw the economy by playing games in the stock markets.

I have nothing but respect for what you have built. As the creator of that business you deserve to make more than your employees. But I would venture to say, you pay them a fair wage and treat them as human beings and not a renewable resource. From a previous post of yours, I gathered it bothered you to let some people go. I wish Jack Welch had some of that humanity when he laid off thousands from GE.

I personally would like to see a differentiation between capital gains tax from just monetary investments and blood, sweat, and tears investment like yours. I would like to see changes that encouraged model YOU set, not the mega conglomerates at your expense. I think our system is upside down. You get punished because you are not big enough to buy your own representation. That is wrong in my opinion.

I have a problem with a CEO making $140 million or more while several employees are making $20,000 or less. I don't think you fit in that category. If you sell your business for that much that is fine. You built it and took all the risks.

Tim:

I too am troubled by executive compensation. I won't invest in companies where the executive is being paid a bizarre amount, even if I could make money off it.

Frankly, we are all pissing in the wind unless we can reduce SPENDING. The stuff we spend our tax dollars on is ludicrous, and I mean that to the point where I would say "criminally" ludicrous.

RBS--As a friend of mine said, who happens to be a socialist, he really doesn't mind that movie stars and athletes make absurd amounts of money. His reasoning is that if people willingly wish to support such people through their actions than so be it. In a way they do create wealth for themselves and others.

wmolaw

Where do you get the impression that Obama thinks the economy is a static pie? If I recall right, he is talking about growing a whole new sector in renewable energy, for one. That doesn't sound like a static pie.

Tim:

Because, all he talks about is taking from one sector, to improve another. That presupposes a static pie. Otherwise, if he had the good of the Country at heart, he would talk about how to grow the pie, to increase the sector he is targeting.

wmolaw

It has been my experience that we all do that as individuals and businesses. We can't afford to do all the things we want at the time we want to do them. Businesses have to make decisions all the time of which projects get funded and which groups get how much of the revenues. Hopefully, they put the money in those areas that will grow the pie so they can fund more of the other priorities. People sacrifice vacations for continuing education so they can get the promotion and afford a better vacation and fix the roof that is about to leak.

This isn't rocket science, reality is he has this pie now. The question is how to divide this pie today so that tomorrows pie is bigger. BTW, today's pie is smaller than yesterday's pie, so it can shrink as well as grow.

they also want to pretend that 1930-1981 did not happen.

Incentives people, incentives, that's what makes our system work, not forcing.

If I owned a huge corporation I would place my business where it would make the MOST money, it's not greed, it's how business works, the bottom line.

Maybe if the DEMs would help work for lower the Capitol Gains tax, businesses would return to the United States. As it stands we have the 2nd highest CGT in the WORLD!

Guess what would happen with the return of businesses to this country ... MORE JOBS!!! More wealth for everyone ... instead Obama takes a private company, takes it over and gives more power the the UAW ... the unions, you know people who backed him in the election.

And now they want to pass legislation which would benefit unions and give them more power to force their thuggish views on the private sector, no thank you Obama.

You people need to wake up, lose the emotion to which you think with and look around you at whgat's going on, it's not fear mongoring, it's really happening.

You're just too blinded with your hate of Bush to see what's really happening.

One more thing I'd like to add to my last seed.

In this time of economic hell wouldn't it make sense to get businesses to re-invest in America? Wouldn't it make sense to offer companies a chance to come back and bring their jobs with them?

Instead we're demonizing them and in some cases we're increading their taxes and then they come up with ways to "close" the loop holes (as if that's possible) for these copanies trying to hide their money.

They should have gotten rid of the Capital Gains tax (till we have our economy back on solid footing - then increase it some) allowed these companies to come back and wallah ... you have people able to get jobs, instead of losing them ... which is what's happening now.

When you tax companies, they don't pay them, they pass them on to you and me. Which is why I laughed at all the Obamanites during his campaign when he told all in attendence he would raise taxes on big oil, and they'd cheer him on. Idiots!!!

Do any of you understand in one gallon of gas, the government gets over 50% of what you pay at the pump .............. interesting, but lets demonize big oil for our high prices at the pump, right?

Again, open your eyes people and start viewing the country and what's going on in it with your "I hate George Bush" glasses off.

Paul

I did some googling and found that there are 154,731,000 people in the civilian wrok force and another 1,500,000 in the military out of a population here of 306,731,009.

Union membership peaked in 1979 at 21 million members. In 2003 that number had dropped to 15.8 million members. Another way to look at it is that in 1954 unions accounted for 28.3% of the workforce while they accounted for 11.5% in 2003. This info comes from a 2004 study at Cornell University and the US govt.

I'm not a big fan of unions, but that old anti union canard needs to be updated. Their numbers are miniscule. We might also note that significant numbers of union members are federal, state and local govt employees.

Maybe business would come back here and bring the jobs wth them. The question would be what kind of jobs at what kind of wage? Minimum? Or what?

A lot of people claim that business needs "incentives". And here I thought the profit motive was incentive enough.

It is true that govt, the feds, states, cities and counties, gets a hefty tax on gasoline. At the same time the oil companies were making quarterly profits that were the highest in history. So, out of the 50% tax bite you mention the oil companies still made unheard of profits. Sounds a lot like incentive to me.

You say companies don't pay taxes, they pass them on to us. Very true. If we get rid of all taxes on business that short fall will also be passed on to us. The revenue has to come from somewhere. If all business taxes were eliminated tomorrow do you suppose business might lower the prices we pay for everything? Fantasy notion, that! The stockholders might be very happy at the windfall profits.

The fact of the matter is that business doesn't give a hoot for me or anybody else not of them or it. They've had a taste of cheaply made stuff that they sell at hefty markups. They aren't about to give up that cash cow just to put a few Americans to work at any kind of meaningful wage. The only way we'll get any decent, livable wage jobs back into this country is to require as many foreign manufacturers as practical to make the stuff here that they sell here.

We sure can't rely on American business to do anything not in its interests.

The incentive is to remove the tax breaks for moving outside the US and to institute trade agreements that require minimal human, ethical, and environmental standards. It is one world. Polluting China pollutes the USA. We should not allow a company to do business in this country if they don't meet our environmental standars wherever they are doing prodution. If they aren't paying a living wage, they can't sell here. Lowering our standards is not the answer, raising the standards globally is.

Certainly it is the job of government to ensure that fraud and dishonesty are not a part of the business climate. Do you believe that this government is capable of doing that? We are now paying the price for our experiment in socialism and freedom from want for producers and non-producers alike.

4.4 Businesses couldn't sell cheap goods if consumers didn't but them.

Tim:

I don't necessarily disagree. Of course, if we actually implemented that, we would go back to living in the stone age pretty much due to the fact that we import so much of our energy needs, specific types of natural resources, etc.

But, know what, I'm willing to consider that. I really am, for I also believe that we should not deal with countries such as arab countries, certain african countries, china, and others that prefer to starve and kill their people rather than care for them.

Of course, the world's population might increase three fold as well.

wmolaw

Have you heard of the proposed solar facility in Nevada? It is 10,000 sq. mi. in area and is said to be able to meet our electrical needs. Did you know we have over 3 times that area in residential surface area alone. Add commercial area and wind, all of which are produced in vicinity to demand and a smart grid and we would have no energy shortage. The problem is the mega corporations wouldn't control the supply and therefor the price.

The new photovoltaic technology (CIGSS for example) is 1/5 the cost of the old silica technology and allows basically any surface to be a photovoltaic collector, even roll up window blinds.

I have more faith in the stubbornness of humanity to keep what we have and want to improve upon it I guess. The problem I see is the multi nationals wanting to keep their hold on the economy and fighting true innovation. IMHO true innovation is a threat to their market share and they have the resources to hinder, if not squash, it.

That is why I want to see redistribution of wealth from the ultra rich and mega large to start ups and entrepreneurs like you. People that are taking the risks to try something new and energizing to the economy. We should encourage that and We are the government. Or should be if we can stop the Exxons from buying it.

Paul

I did some googling and found that there are 154,731,000 people in the civilian wrok force and another 1,500,000 in the military out of a population here of 306,731,009.

Seems like a good number to work with.

Union membership peaked in 1979 at 21 million members. In 2003 that number had dropped to 15.8 million members. Another way to look at it is that in 1954 unions accounted for 28.3% of the workforce while they accounted for 11.5% in 2003. This info comes from a 2004 study at Cornell University and the US govt.

I am not trying to suggest Unions are powerful by the numbers that are in, and if read that way, then I apologize. What I am referring to is what Obama did with the UAW was wrong, in my opinion. It's just as wrong as what they (Bush/Obama) with Wallstreet and those in the banking and mortgage industries. They rewarded those institutions with power and money, although they themselves, were the main reason they failed.

Look at the car industry for example ... the UAW and their salaries, made it impossible for our car companies to compete with foreign makers, because they were paid almost twice as much and had better benefit packages, too boot. So what does Obama do to fix this, he rewards them by giving them more stock in the companies.

I'm not a big fan of unions, but that old anti union canard needs to be updated. Their numbers are miniscule. We might also note that significant numbers of union members are federal, state and local govt employees.

Yes and these numbers are sure to rise if the law the Democrats wish to pass, does. That is my fear. I have no problem with people wanting to work for unions, my problem is how unions recruit, and the law they wish to pass will make it easier for unions to do so with more intimidation. Look it up ... I believe it's Card Check.

All I know is in the construction world (worked in interior construction when younger) the Unions do all they can to intimidate those who work in the private sector to work for them. They take license plates down and go to peoples houses ... they threaten people ... they plant unions workers in privately owned companies (salties) and get unions reps in their to vote on making said company union and if the workers vote yes, the owner loses his company ... the bully the GC's of jobs being done by private companies, to kick those companies out and give the work to union companies. I actually was called from one job to get to another witha friend of mine, because 3 union workers were on our job and went to their cars and came back with pipes to fight. These are just a couple of things I've witnessed myself. Card check would now make it that union votes would not be private, the union would have the information of people who DON'T wish to go union, thus allowing them to work them over till they got their way ... people laugh, b ut it's serious. Right now, votes are cast byway of secret ballots, allowing people's vote to be secret.

Maybe business would come back here and bring the jobs wth them. The question would be what kind of jobs at what kind of wage? Minimum? Or what?

Not to come off as insensitive, but does it matter? Work is work and it's better then having no work at all, isn't it? I would prefer everyone working make good money, but the market doesn't allow that, different jobs, doing different tasks, requiring different skills are what sets it. Right now, the only jobs I see being created are government jobs, to fill the increasing size of government ... not a good thing in my opinion.

A lot of people claim that business needs "incentives". And here I thought the profit motive was incentive enough.

That's precisely the incentive that makes them take their company over seas. They make more profit elsewhere, because they don't have to pay outrageous benefit packages or outrageous taxes. Lowering the taxes would wonders to get jobs back here in the states. Combine that with getting a grasp on this out of control illegal immigration problem and you would see more jobs, more money being made, and the economy would boom.

It is true that govt, the feds, states, cities and counties, gets a hefty tax on gasoline. At the same time the oil companies were making quarterly profits that were the highest in history. So, out of the 50% tax bite you mention the oil companies still made unheard of profits. Sounds a lot like incentive to me.

Yes they were, but it wasn't them that set the price on the market ... that would be the speculators ... they should be reigned in, as well. That would eliminate that huge price increases everytime Iran or someone in the Middle East mentions the world annihalation or war.

You say companies don't pay taxes, they pass them on to us. Very true. If we get rid of all taxes on business that short fall will also be passed on to us. The revenue has to come from somewhere. If all business taxes were eliminated tomorrow do you suppose business might lower the prices we pay for everything? Fantasy notion, that! The stockholders might be very happy at the windfall profits.

The prices would come down, not right away, but if people opted to buy generic items, instead of name brand, you would be amazed how fast the prices would come down.

The fact of the matter is that business doesn't give a hoot for me or anybody else not of them or it. They've had a taste of cheaply made stuff that they sell at hefty markups. They aren't about to give up that cash cow just to put a few Americans to work at any kind of meaningful wage. The only way we'll get any decent, livable wage jobs back into this country is to require as many foreign manufacturers as practical to make the stuff here that they sell here.

That doesn't benefit our economy though. The money being made by foreign companies doesn't help us, it helps them. Again, I have no problem with companies making loads of money, it's their company, they did all the right things and put in the time, money, and hard work to be a big as they are.

I will never understand all this sudden urge to punish those who succeeded in making money, it's theirs, do as you please with it. But this notion that they need to pay their "fair share", is joke ... because it's not a fair share, it's the majority they pay ... it's hypocritical.

We sure can't rely on American business to do anything not in its interests.

Again, that's capitalism and it's better then socialism ... look around you and the world. All progress is in thanks to capitalism, not socialism or communism. You ever see the Russians space crafts? Look familiar? They should because they copied ours ... that is what happens in socialism and communism ... they borrow technology, instead of inventing it.

Another thing that w0ould help this country right now is athing called the Fair Tax. Read up on it and tell me you wouldn't prefer that?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I disagree, most people I know who are wealthy, worked very, very hard to get there. Once they get their, they don't put in as much time, simply because they don't have to. Many of these wealthy individuals come from very modest means, like our president did, who by the way is considered wealthy as well. I think the article is trying to say that there is opportunity in this country and some of the obama policies are going to stifle that. I really don't want the government taking care of me, I want to take care of myself, I want the opportunity to be successful and am working hard and am on my way, I don't want that taken away from me.

I agree that many wealthy people have to work very hard for what they have. Some, not so much. In that same vein, while some of the poor are indeed lazy and constantly on welfare, most that I have known work two or three jobs and don't spend even half the time complaining about other people that the average conservative seemingly does. Because, you know, they have to actually work!

Also, to say that some people have more than their fair share is not an attack on achievement and rights. My counter to that line of thinking is that although we cannot wipe out all economic disparities, concentrating the bulk of the wealth among just a few people actually stifles ingenuity. After all, who wants to work hard just to get nowhere? So while I don't think we are yet at that point, recent trends toward deregulation and stagnant wages have certainly put us on that track.

I do think that we are also jeopardizing the people who are making the money to invest outside the country and who simply will close up shop and retire, and than the money will be less distributed. I am not sure it is just conservatives who complain, I hear allot of liberals complain as well. I do agree with the fact that wages have been stagnant and hopefully that will change. My mom was a divorced woman who had 5 young children and we were basically abandoned by my dad. I saw the struggles my mother went thru, and the hardships we faced were staggering. She did not complain, she got up every morning and worked late everyday to provide for us. Sure, would it have been a better situation with her home more often, of course, but it is not the governments responsibility to provide that opportunity. She totally instilled hard work and non government reliance in us, and she provided the example in herself. Eventually, she ended up doing quite well for herself, far better than if she had gone to the government for welfare, which she is very proud of the fact that she never did. Sure some people have more than their fair share, but what does that have to do with me and what I want to accomplish in my life. They don't owe me anything, but a good wage and benefits if I happen to work for them. My mother was on the far end of the economic disparity and made her way over the line, most people can do the same, but it is hard. She also raised 5 children that went on to lead very productive and happy lives, many mothers today would stay home, collect a government check and complain it is not enough. That is a very sad commentary on our society.

Par:

Generalizations will never work, as noted by your own post. Some of the poor are, in fact, shiftless and won't work. Most, as you note, work their ass off. Of couse, not sure what "poor" really means in our Country or the world, but I'm going with you here.

And Egbay:

Most of those who are "wealthy" now (whatever the hell that means) did work hard as hell to get there. Maybe they don't work so hard now, okay. Is that a crime?

It is also true that the more money you have, the easier it is to make money. That has always and will always be true, but it is not, necessarily, a bad thing.

What I see happening is that there really is an attempt on the part of some to create a "class" war. The result of such a war, of course, would be the productive leave and we are all left with being the same, poor and without the ability to actually reach our goals and dreams.

What the hell, I have another 20 years or so on this spinning globe, it seems to me the kids of the world should be the ones fighting over what kind of future they want.

wmolaw

Most of those who are "wealthy" now (whatever the hell that means) did work hard as hell to get there. Maybe they don't work so hard now, okay. Is that a crime?

No, I don't think it is a crime. Maybe you misunderstood me.

I, too, have known people who started out from modest financial beginnings and have done quite well. There's an interesting phenomenon at work for some, not all, of them. It seems the more money they make the more jealous and niggardly they become. I call it the Midas Curse. More never seems quite enough and the fact that a few people at the bottom are getting a some public scraps to scrape by somehow sends them into high dudgeon. I don't get that. I'm not wealthy, by any means, but I've done a lot better financially than my father did and while it's never any fun paying taxes, I do realize that to keep certain levels of well functioning society, taxes need to be part of the realm of citizenship. I'm also very bothered by the way our federal government wastes so many billions, but I see the biggest area of that in our insatiable appetite for weapons that we'll never need. Our "defense" budget is really just a corporate welfare program for the weapons industry and the pork and waste there dwarfs everything else in our federal spending. Until rightwingers include that in their hit list of federal waste, they'll get no support from me, and other like me, I trust.

P.S. Another difference between me and rightwingers is that I don't think this country was founded just to let people get rich by whatever means, some kind of money-grabbing free-for-all and that taxation was never to be a part of it. I don't know where this ancient, moldering idea came from but it lacks history as well as rationality for its existence.

egbay:

Sorry, I was being rhetorical. It was badly phrased, did not mean to impute to you that belief.

@ wmolaw:

If we are indeed seeing a class war, it goes both ways. There is no single aggressor or single victim. I haven't been on this site long, but on other forums I have frequently heard the claim that the people most of us would regard as poor are actually a "privileged class" because they are eligible in many cases for Medicaid, welfare, and other assistance programs. My response is that anyone who truly believes it is unfair for the poor to receive these benefits should quit their jobs and try living on government assistance. Then get back to me about how privileged they feel while doing so.

Generalizations rarely work, but if I may make one generalization it is that people of all stripes love to complain about things they THINK other people have. Even when those other people, in sum, have far less than they do. Sometimes, a little perspective is sorely needed.

Paren:

I have often said, on this site and elsewhere, that ALL citizens of this Country deserve (and it should be their right) to be clothed, fed, housed, educated, and to receive health care.) Period.

Where I get most disagreement is to HOW that is to be accomplished. Most wish to just pass out dollars, assuming that will solve the problem. Of course it doesn't, people being people.

Instead, let's provide those basics, but no dollars. Let's provide those basics for a nominal rate of return, say two days of work. Let's provide training, I'm good with all that.

And for those who refuse to partake of these opportunities, we should all see them as individuals who are making conscious decisions NOT to partake of them and, thus, they go it alone.

wmolaw

We agree in principle again. Just a couple of thoughts to ponder.

1) Those that don't partake. How many are mentally or emotionally ill? How does that effect your approach? Many of the homeless have sever mental or emotional problems. What should we do with them?

2) What do you think of a safety net system that allows a person that gets a sub-living wage being allowed assistance that leaves them better off than if they didn't work at all? That rewards work of any kind over dependency on the state. This gives the person the chance to develop the skills to earn a living wage without punishing them for the learning period.

The point you seem to be missing is that that is what drives capiltalism, and without that "greed" the left refers to, innovatkion wouldn 't happen at the rate it does.

I don't blame the rich f0or a damn thing, more power to them i say. They are the owner of their corporation, they should be able to do whatever it is they wish to do with it, it's theirs ... not yours, not mine, and most certainly not the governments.

That's the problem I have with the crybabies preaching for equality ... it's not their money, they shouldn't be entitled to any of it, because THEY didn't earn it.

Todays society has become a bunch of whining liberals that instead of working hard to get whatever lifestyle they wish to have, wish to have it given to them without earning it .... that is why this country is falling behind in almost every category when compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

Kevin:

1) Those that don't partake. How many are mentally or emotionally ill? How does that effect your approach? Many of the homeless have sever mental or emotional problems. What should we do with them?

2) What do you think of a safety net system that allows a person that gets a sub-living wage being allowed assistance that leaves them better off than if they didn't work at all? That rewards work of any kind over dependency on the state. This gives the person the chance to develop the skills to earn a living wage without punishing them for the learning period.

As to number 1, if they are sufficiently impaired, then they should be institutionalized. I know that seems harsh, but it is just the truthful fact. In fact, one of the huge mistakes Johnson made during his term was to mandate the release of many people who should never have been releases.

2. See my post above, if they need food, they get food, if clothing, they get clothing, etc. I heard on tv the other day that something like 80% or so of the individual "stimulus" checks were spent on booze or tobacco products. Know what, I ain't into that. I am firmly in the camp that this Country is great enough to provide the basics, but if you just give MONEY, as we have learned, it is usually spent on all the wrong things, things which actually hurt those folks, not help them. So, no, no money.

Paul:

Some of what you say is true, but generalizations are always bad.

I know of many people who can't work, but would. Sometimes life just throws you a load of @!$%#, and it is those folks who, when they truly need, should be supported. Most of them, by the way, need only limited help, for a limited period of time.

What you DON'T want to do is exactly what we have done over the past 40 years or so, created a class of people who are so dependent on government that they cannot (or will not) seek private sector work.

It's all about incentives. So, my point about making them work at least two days a week is a very necessary part of this picture.

No, these clowns don't.

The achievers were out there on the assembly line at GM and Chrysler; they're the ones being shafted. The "achievers" these people worship were paper pushers with golden parachutes and they jumped from the plane long before it crashed giving the rest of us the finger as they floated gently to safety.

God, I admire Reagan. I really mean that. He accomplished something that logically should have been impossible. He actually convinced the working classes they were better off with less!

The gooey mess we have now is the realization of Ron's dream. After 30 years of relentless assault on the middle classes, we have nearly exterminated them.

I have no idea how Supply-Side economics was sold to the American people.

I was too young then to have been aware of much politically.

Letting the greedbeast run amok, and feeding it's insatiable appetite with middle-class lively-hood was economically and socially suicidal.

And the trickle up economic policy is going to work so well. You have to have money to trickle up.

Of course, the trickle up is going right back to the hated wealthy, as they own the company you are going to trickle up to.

That is the funny part of this. Those that seem to hate the current system so much, are merely seeking the imposition of a worse system, one where the government distributes money.

And, of course, we all know that the government is so efficient and absolutely immune to corruption, graft, and all the other little issues which humans seem to have, eh? (sarcasm folks, sarcasm).

greg, and wmolaw:

That is a common stereotype of the left.

I, for one, do not want a handout. I don't expect the govt to take money from a wealthy person's wallet and stuff it into mine.

Nonsense.

You must, however, recognize that the executive structure has been siphoning value from the American job over the past 30+ years and in turn depleting the middle-class lifestyle. There is no debating that. Executives (due to the incestous powershare of company BODs) make an unprecedented amount of money nowadays while the average American pay has stayed stagnant (given inflation).

THIS is what must change. If it does not, we are headed towards an absolute plutocracy and the American worker will be a wage slave like so many factory workers in any given developing nation.

You have to remember that exorbitant wealth is not the typical American dream. What most Americans want is a good paying career with a nice house, access to healthcare, chance for a dignified retirement and the ability to educate their children.

Brian:

I will agree that executive pay is outrageous, truly. But that is up to the shareholders of the company, and the Board (although the shareholders have the ultimate say). Do you think it should be up to the government?

That change must be effected by the companies themselves, by the shareholders, by societal pressure, not by governmental edict.

I agree as to the American dream, if you add in golf three times a week on a nice course.

SG, it seems you're content to defame people rather than discuss the topic.

The GOP cannot attack with what they lack: substance. They have nothing substantive to say because they were the ones that screwed everything up.

The whole "spread the wealth" argument is an overplayed FOX News talking point that has been discussed ad nauseam in the past. Some folks just prefer to beat dead horses....

Then where does that "Trickle Up Economics? montra come from?

Trickle up economics is only a give to the poor to give back to the wealthy. We still need the wealthy for it to work. Those stupid, crappy weathly folks make you spend your money everytime.

Penalize the wealthy and they have enough money to all of us to shove it.

Do you still ascribe to that silly and discredited "trickle down" Reagan malarkey. That's just a joke now.

Better than the trickle up. How do you trickle up from nothing?

Oh, I get it, Government handouts, then passed on to the wealthy.

Damn, was I stupid.

Science Guy when manure is all you have to spread around..well...that's all ya' got!

All of this talk about trickling up and down inspired my admittedly twisted mind to ponder about the good ol' days of tea-bagging:

Given the success of the Tea Bagging event heavily promoted by Glenn Beck and the other scrotally-challenged clowns at FOX News, next week the GOP plans to promote a new campaign which celebrates the BEST policies of the Republican Party. They plan to call it "conservative bestiality".

This will be followed up with a series of programs devoted to how increasing tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy will rain wealth on the rest of America. The name for this event: "Trickle-down economics lead to Golden Showers".

Stay tuned.

"Trickle down" and "trickle up" are not necessarily useful terms...

Supply-side economics proponents believe that, by allowing the upper echelons of the economic strata (the companies, company owners, &c) to retain more of their money, they are prompting more production of goods, ie more jobs given to folks to produce goods. The increase in supply will lead to an increase in demand, as cheaper goods lead to more consumption, and so an increase in profits, and round and round we go...

Trickle-up, which could perhaps be termed "demand-side economics", has proponents who believe that allowing the lower stratas of the economic polity to retain more of their money or earn more at the outset creates demand since they will have more cash to cover basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) and to spend on consumer goods. More demand leads to more jobs to provide supply, leading to more cash among the lower echelons and more profits for the companies, capitalist owners, &c &c.

Opponents of supply-side economics note that, basic needs being comfortably covered among the upper echelons, the impulse to spend is often not as great as the impulse to save-- what's called the "marginal propensity to save". On the other hand, greater disposable funds among the lower echelons will more often be spent, since their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) are not comfortably or securely covered. The upshot being, that in general, tax relief for the wealthy, since there is no great need to spend it, is often not spent (does not, in fact, "trickle down"-- and in fact tax relief aimed at promoting savings is usually aimed at the upper echelons), while tax relief aimed at the lower echelons has a greater probability of returning to circulation through consumption and satisfying of the basic needs.

In macro terms, applied to recent policies, tax relief that is spread among all echelons, not just the upper few, has a greater chance of returning to circulation. The entry of the government as a primary consumer (in the form of greater investment, or consumption, in the areas of infrastructure, &c) also broadens the base by providing jobs/ wages in those sectors traditionally seen as the bottom of the pile (construction, production, &c). An interesting consideration in this conversation would be the fact that Reagan's tax cuts were also coupled with a large increase in government spending/ consumption, primarily geared around the military. Since Reagan raised taxes yearly after that initial cut, was it the tax cuts, or the Keynesian investment in the "guns" side of guns and butter, that provided more economic relief during his tenure?

"Trickle-down", as a term, replaced the older description from the 1890s: "the horse and sparrow effect"-- the theory being that if you fed more oats to a horse, more oats would come out the other end to feed the sparrows on the street...

ScienceGuy,

If the shoe doesn't fit, try the next one...

Ayres didn't work, moving on...

No one's buying Wright, moving on...

And that "terrorist jab," no one's into it, too, so moving on...

Communism...no scratch that, how about Fascism...hmmm that'll do (for now)!

And now, this...

Next will be the President not having a legitimate birth certificate because he's really from Mars and wants to have global domination!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly.

During the past few months, the Republican Party has been attempting to convince the American public that Obama and the Democratic Party have a master plan to convert our nation into a "socialist state". The GOP's labeling of Obama as a socialist had absolutely nothing to do with presenting a rational criticism for debate. It has been solely intended to stir up fear and hatred among the masses. McCarthy would have been proud.

The "socialist" moniker was only the latest in a string of disingenuous, fear-mongering labels that the GOP has attributed to Obama ever since he won the party nomination last year. First he was called an "elitist" and a "celebrity". When that fell flat, they moved on to calling him a "Muslim", drawing attention to his middle name. When the public showed their distaste for that attempt, they began calling Obama a "terrorist-sympathizer". Most recently, he has been called "Marxist", "Communist", "Fascist", and of course, "Socialist".

The GOP has NO new ideas about how to improve the economy or our relations with foreign powers, so instead they rely on juvenile name-calling. It contributed to their huge losses in the 2008 election, and it will cost them again in 2010 if they don't change their tone and begin a mature, positive, rational, and intellectual conversation with the American people.

SG,

I hear nothing but crickets and more whining from the other fence. I concur with everything you've said. It amazes me that the Opposition Party has not set forth any contentious plans, other than more tax breaks. They are spending their resources in smearing the President, as if it's still the election, when they can instead use their "think tanks" to actually THINK of a way out of this mess created by their party! Whoa! What a concept!

When will they stop buying the BS talking points?

Probably never. The only way some people can deal with their insecurities is by acting like they're better than others, i.e., they "deserve" more because they work so much harder than everyone else.

they "deserve" more because they work so much harder than everyone else.

So you are against overtime or anything like that?

egbay:

Reminds me of my sister in law, a partner at a huge accounting firm that worked overseas in France for a couple of years.

There were about five of them from the USA working there. They were finally told that they had to come to work in one car because it was causing other employees (French employees) to feel bad because those from the USA were working longer and harder than they were (they could tell by the fact the cars the Americans were driving were still there, all of them).

Unbelievable.

Not at all. What I'm actually against is people assigning an inflated value to their own work as a means of justifying a belief that they are better than others, or a position that they should not have to contribute to the general welfare of society because people who have less than they do must necessarily be lazy.

because it was causing other employees (French employees) to feel bad because those from the USA were working longer and harder than they were

I call BS...the French know they have it better than us with their work to live, not live to work culture.

TJG:

I don't care what you call, you're full of it. It's true, it happened, and your little tantrum of disbelief does not change that.

Now, go ankle bite someone else.

WMO, without personal attacks, you'd have nothing to say.

So telling!

Why so snippy? I hit a nerve?

The Jones Girl..watch out because jelly fish have a very rudimentary nervous system, they lash out and entangle without knowledge. It's the primitive fight or flight urges or can I eat it or can I mate with it! Don't waste your time on wmolaw! it's futile and take my grandfathers advice...ignore the ignorant!

You know it, Cat. I must've hit one of Incredulous's rudimentary nerves, after that display.

Something does not ring true, TYLER. . . you beat up on Jones Girl for insulting someone she disagrees with, yet other insults go unchallenged!

I admittedly have no respect for Jones Girl's puerile arguments, but we either hold EVERYONE to a standard of non-namecalling or drop the pretense and let people call each other what they wish. Something called "FAIRNESS!" Apply the rule equally or do not apply it at all. . . certainly not SELECTIVELY!

In short, no insulting name calling. . . by anyone. . . to anyone!

jbird:

My dad was in HR his whole life. Will never forget this incident. We lived on Long Island. He had hired a disabled man, in a wheel chair.

One night there was a huge snow. My dad borrowed a 4 wheel drive to get to the plant to be sure all was okay, he had me ride with him. We get to the plant, and the parking lot is completely empty except for one van that is running, you got it, it was the disabled guy's van.

We go up to the van, and upon invitation climb in. What the hell are you doing here, my dad asks the guy. He explains to us that as the weather report called for heavy snows, and as his van wasn't 4 wheel drive, he had driven over the evening before and decided to sleep in the van to be sure that he wouldn't miss work.

Amazing, absolutely amazing.

That is a GREAT story to share! Thanks!!

Yeah, will never forget it. My dad had a real thing about hiring those who were qualified but because of some "societal" bugaboo might not otherwise get a shot, and he was extremely successful because of it.

Kind of reminds me of how many of our injured vets returning from Afghanistan/Iraq have been having a lot of trouble finding employment. I remember reading about it even before our economic situation became horrible.

Wmolaw...I knew there was a real person in there some where...nice to see her! Now let's see some more of your father in you in your postings. And since you seem to think I won't or never apologized for anything, I should have read your story about your father before I posted the comment to the Jones Girl...can you acknowledge what I have said?....Live Long and Prosper

Schroedingers:

My life's beliefs are really pretty simple, and they were given to me by my dad and my mom, both extremely erudite and compassionate people though I am sure both of them would be called "conservative" today because they happen to believe in less government, more freedom. And excuse the crassness of numbers 2 and 3, it was my dad who taught me those, though my mom agreed with the meaning, just not the description:

1. You can't make yourself bigger by making someone else smaller.

2. @!$%# me once, shame on you, @!$%# me twice, shame on me.

3. Suck one cock and you'll forever be known as a @!$%#.

I know 2 and 3 are crass, but there you go.

He also had a favorite saying which always impressed me as well:

"Put your mind in motion before you put your mouth in gear."

My mom taught "special" kids her whole life and my dad was, as I said, in HR from the time he graduated law school (thanks to the veteran benefits awarded for service in WWII). Back then, due to the brand new laws relating to unions, you pretty much had to go to law school to get a good job in HR, he never wanted to be a lawyer. Michigan law, order of the coif.

I do know that they taught me to respect all people, give all a first chance.

Wmolaw Thanks for the insight into your life I like your dad's saying about mind and mouth! My dad said the very same thing, Our parents are similar in that my father also fought in WW2 he was in the infantry and fought in many battles including the Battle of the Bulge where he turned down a field promotion to Sargent,and later when working for the local glass plant he turned down promotions to supervisor because he was one of the best decorating machine operators that A.H ever had, he even designed improvements in the machine he operated. My mother was dedicated to raising my brothers and I so she stayed at home to make sure we were well taken care of. The best way to describe my fathers political mind is an Archie Bunker Democrat, the first time I ever saw him cry was the day Kennedy was assassinated I was five and I remember that day as if it were yesterday. Now that we know this about each other perhaps our comments (I know mine will) be more respectfull, I'm just very passionate about my views as you seem to be, pesky clients not withstanding....

Schroedinger:

Reminds me of one of my uncles, on my mom's side. Lied about his age and fought in WWII, then became a lifer in the Army. Fought in Korea, served six tours in Vietnam. Attended numerous officer schools to learn languages, he speaks four or five, can't remember which. But constantly turned down offers for promotion to Looey. He always said, "I ain't an officer, I'm a grunt and will always stay a grunt."

A stellar man, the kind which they really don't seem to make anymore. Never heard him bitch a day in his life. He and his wife adopted two german boys which they found in a hotel room in Germany (visiting his brother) tied to the bed stand. They were twins. One had a perforated kidney because he had refused to pee because his "parent" (it was his mother) had always beat him severly if he peed in his pants (he never wore a diaper, kind of hard not to).

Both in their late 30's now, living and doing great. He's kind of my hero, he and my dad.

Frankly, I always try to keep my comments respectful. I try to really only call the stated position, whatever, not the person. Don't always succeed, saint hood is not the in cards for me, but I do try.

Most on this site can't seem to differentiate between "that's a stupid position," and "you're stupid." Hell, we ALL have had stupid positions before, undertaken without sufficient thought (the mind and motion issue) or without sufficient facts and should not be upset if someone calls an IDEA or POSTION dumb, whatever.

But I really try to stay away from name calling.

wmolaw I'm glad to see we have something in common, the story about your uncle is great and I admire him for taking those two boys as his adopted sons, it makes you believe even more in the capacity of the human heart for good deeds that are not self serving and are by their nature, pure. I try not to use labels my self but sometimes you want to reach out and throttle some people and I guess the labels are some compensation in that instance. If you ever decide to send a new friend request in the future, I would gladly accept it, I have never sent out friend requests save for one because being a "guy" I'm not to keen on rejection, ..oh well! Live long and Prosper!

Schroedinger:

Sure, I've never sent out a friend request, but will be glad to do so. I probably need to do that more often but on the site in spurts, not constantly (though it may seem like that from time to time.)

wmolaw I just logged on and accepted friend request, have a good weekend! I'm heading for the great outdoors for my weekend decompression.

"Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"

But your saying, if we concede, someone will pick up the pieces and we will have no worries. How Star Trek.

Those with money, give us the jobs. Unless we want a welfare state, that's just the way it is.

Those with money can make those jobs disappear much faster than they were created, as the last two years have shown. And I would say the American consumer creates those jobs in any case. The producer needs those jobs to make his/her fortune. It's not a favor done to the country out of altruism. Your argument is both economically and morally bankrupt.

Not bankrupt at all.

When the wealthy clam up, were do you get your job from? The bottom.

The wealthy will never do that and jobs will always be created by people who have ideas, initiative and energy...not by people who're already comfortable. Most people in this country are employed in small businesses whose owners, for the most part, are not wealthy. That has been the case regardless of what the tax rates are. Your worship of the wealthy is greatly misplaced and your apparent belief that they're the source of all prosperity is beyond foolish.

The wealthy will never do that and jobs will always be created by people who have ideas, initiative and energy.

Your kidding, RIGHT!

Do you think the wealthy got wealthy because they had no ideas and were stupid?

Bill Gates must be a dumb ass.

I don't think the wealthy are any great asset to this country. I don't have anything against them. Yes, some of them are stupid. And some of them have ideas that border, if not cross the legal and ethical line more than not in order to make money. Trump is a good example. He's great at finding investors. He's lost as much of their money as he's ever gained, maybe more, but he always gets his cut off the top. So that makes him some kind of genius in your eyes? He's a successful huckster. You're a dreamer, greg. I can see you know, "busting your hump" daydreaming about being Bill Gates. He started out on third base with a wealthy (and very liberal) Seattle attorney father, so his getting start up to buy up an OS someone else made, and not very well, but early in the computer game and figured out how to market it well. Smart marketing but he didn't create the product he just figured out a way to sell it in large quantity. Was he sharp, sure. Was he essential to human life on the planet....not yet.

I don't think the wealthy are any great asset to this country

Then how has this country been sustaining itself, WELFARE?

He started out on third base with a wealthy

Really! Wonder if that wealth made him so smart.

Was he essential to human life on the planet....not yet.

But he was essential on the computor programming your posting with now.

Wonder what dumb ass started GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Boeing, Jet Blue, etc...

What a bunch of Dumb Ass wealth driven folks, don't ya think!

Only wealth can make you smart. Wonder what those folks that started companies, with no money would tell you. Then you'd have to ask those employeed by these companies, if they hate them.

greg-7

Then how has this country been sustaining itself, WELFARE?

On the backs of the factory worker, coal miners black lung, the farmers. Yes some made it rich and they deserve what they made. What has Paris Hilton or the others that inherted their wealth contributed? I don't consider building a business as a capital gain. Capital gain is from investing (loaning) money and should be taxed as regular income.

You want to reward innovation, reward the person that starts their own business. Lower their tax rate, fine. But the CEO of AIG, GM, Ford, Exxon, etc did not start those companies, did not take the personal risk, did not have the innovative idea and dream. So don't put them in the same category. As for inheretance taxes, leave them enough to live off of and that's it. If they want the lifestyle they have become accustom to then earn it on their own. $2 mill invested wisely should suffice.

And we should have a social safety net. Not the corrupt, immoral experiment in forced perpetuation we had in the 60's. One that encourages people to take risks, knoeing they won't go homeless and hungry if they fail. One that encourages people to work their way off the system by rewarding them with graded decreases in their assistance as their earning power increases. One where they are always better off for working instead of punished for any earned income.

Tim:

No, capital gain is from the purchase of an asset and the resulting (hopefully) increase in value of that asset.

Such as a house, a car, ANY asset, not just stocks.

Why should you be desirous of telling a woman or man who worked hard (and smart) and made tons of dough, how they should leave it. Why would you wish to control the flow of capital from one generation to the other?

As to the "safety" net, see my post above. I agree, but not in dollars, in actual provision of needed services.

OUTSTANDING FIND! Please give the reference because when I run out and rub it into my conservidiot friends faces that Adam Smith was for wealth redistribution they are going to want proof.

Thanks again:)

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of House.[2]

There's also this, from the same source:

"No society can be surely flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably wel fed, cloathed and lodged."

Perhaps not directly regarding taxation, but still arguing for a more equitable system...

I also like this section of the oft-quoted but seldom-read John Winthrop sermon A Model of Christian Charity:

We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body.

Not at all. Back in the day, work flowed and came easy, now, like everyone else since the election, we fight to get work to support our business's, so we can keep employee's.

FIND THAT A JOKE NOW!

You didn't go into business to work hard? You just expected it always to be easy? How old ARE you?

I went into business to make money. When the business is good, you make money and work less, as an owner, because you pay people to work so you work less. That's what starting and financing your own business can do for you.

We started with a loan against our houses, not with investor money.

Now its harder for me and my partner, because we had to let go employee's because of the economy. Self employee'd business owners do look out for themselves you know. That's the reason for starting your own business. And I have degree's I paid for myself, too. Paid those loans back also.

How old ARE you?

Old enough to not want to work anymore. But not that old.

It doesn't take much genius or effort, you're right, in boom times to make it. The real test of a businessman is to make it through times like this. You just got soft. First you actually admit that you want to live easy off the sweat of others. Then you have the nerve to say "Self employee'd business owners do look out for themselves you know." Wow, no wonder you're in trouble. Just how do you find the time to spend so much of it here?

Lets see, My partner and I have been in business together for 30yrs. I'd say we have made it through plenty. The last 8 years were more profitable than any year since we started.

And so you'll know, its Civil Engineering and Architecture, along with Environmental and Chemical Engineering, is what our company does.

Yes, in case you ask, I funded myself through college and paid the loans back.

A lot of us did the last, greg. Have any government contracts?

Have any government contracts?

None. Never wanted to get involved in that. We have received bid proposal, but chucked them in the trash. To busy with the private sector.

Funny thing is, we used to get 5 or 5 a year, now there is none. Wonder where the stimulus money went. County and state web sites have cut their proposals to 1/8 of what they used to do. Wonder why?

To Pres. Obama, "Where's the Beef"?

Could be they decided to stop wasting paper and postage on you. Maybe you should have lobbied for a bigger stimulus package if you're not happy with what was passed.

You did read what I posted didn't you.

Here, just for you:

County and state web sites have cut their proposals to 1/8 of what they used to do.

weve never before seen a president alienate 36 states in 4 months.

Do you think that the tea parties are bogus? we are tired of business as usual and obama is just another crook in a long line of crooks.

The russians said it quite eloquently...New boss same as the old boss...

New boss same as the old boss...

the russians??.... how about The Who.....

bwana, not so much bogus as idiotic. Two thirds of this country are supporting Obama. Another 20% are lukewarm. Only about 10%, or of the deadenders like the tea baggers, are openly hostile. I can't imagine where you came up with a number like 36 "alienated" states....wait, I take that back. I can imagine. The rightwing BS machine is in high gear.

I guess that making a truthful comment brings out all of the leftist basement dwellers. I learned that my idiot brother voted for Obama because he wanted to get some tang from this girl he was dating. Since he is unemployed and came to live with me I have been feeding and housing him.

Last night I told him that at the end of the month he needs to move out and get a job. My basement is no longer a habitat for morons...

Maybe if more people did this, we wouldnt have the bozo's running this country...

Don't worry, bwana. If you ever issue a "truthful comment" we'll let you know. In fact, the whole world might feel the quake as hell freezes over.

Do you think that the tea parties are bogus?

No, I know they are.

If you don't take him seriously, then why do youa nd the rest of the Democrats respond to everything Rush says? Obviously you are the immature one if you can't even ignore him and anyone else.

If you don't take him seriously, then why do youa nd the rest of the Democrats respond to everything Rush says?

Why do people hold their nose and say "Ewwww!" when passing by a pig farm? It's natural to express revulsion.

Sorry, but this is completely different. Where a smell cannot be avoided or ignored as it is one of your senses, reading articles or listening to the man is not. That would be called self control. Something the Democrats obviously lack as Obama continues to spend uncontrollably with money that I guess he believes is endless.

If the elected republican officials would stop retracting their comments and apoligizing to Rush I couldn't care less what he says. But when he is dictating their stance on issues that concern this country, it is my responsibility as a citizen to know the source of their positions.

As soon as Boehner, Mitchell, Steele, Recantor (I mean Cantor), etc start acting independently, I will start listening and commenting on them. As long as Rush is giving the marching orders, hes open game.

Rush isn't giving anybody orders. He looks like he's giving orders because he says what he sees and what he sees is usually the truth.

So, Clive...how do you explain that the overall economy almost always does better under Dem controlled presidencies than Republicans? Every one of the recessions over the past 30 years has been under a Republican president. Check it out if you don't believe me. Two, count 'em 2, under Reagan alone.

because FrJackHackett, the economy is an illusory item. Recessions are created in a controlled environment, yes the Federal Reserve pumps too much money in, places their bets and reaps the rewards everytime. Problem, Reaction, Solution. Blame repubs if you want, dems are in on it too. Number one indicator that both parties are traitors - aggressive foreign policy stance- aka empire not democracy/republic. Last real president was JFK and look what happened to him when he warned about the secret goverment.

FrJack - Recessions are almost always cyclical and are not immediate to the actions taken by a particular president. It's not true to say that recessions are peculiar to one party or the other. In the case of GWB, the recession had already begun during the Clinton admin but was not evident until months later so we had a recession that straddled two preisdents. This is common. Even in our current situation economists argued for months as to when the recession actually began. And the truth is that presidents can rarely do anyhting to stop a recession but they can do things that make them worse or prolong them. Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act which took us from recession to depression. Obama is taking us from recession to hyper-inflation by going down a road similar to Jimma C. To stop inflation a future president will have to create a recession which may or may not take hold during his or her administration, thus his or her successor may do nothing but get the credit for improving the economy.

FrJackHackett

The slavishness is based on the feudal nature of capitalism and merchantilism that we practice today. They are afraid that if they don't suck up to the rich they won't be rewarded and let into the clique. For others it is the fear that they will lose their jobs and their families will suffer.

GregJ, are you seriously suggesting that our current recession began during the Clinton administration? What about all those years in the middle (agreed, "all those" turns out to be about two) that BushCo, Inc crowed about it's "great" economic success? Next time you're tempted to complain about how we keep blaming Bush for the current state, just remember this contortion of yours.

Fr:

That argument has been made time and time again, on both sides. Either the sitting president is responsible for what happens during his tenure, a position many take, or history and prior presidents and policy (together with a host of other issues) is.

What always pisses me off are folks who say that the existing problems are not the sitting president's fault, but that the receding of such problems is his doing. Ludicrous.

In my opinion, a sitting president is on a roller coaster of prior policies and events and all he can do (and be given credit for) is holding on and not letting the car go off the tracks.

With Obama, he made lots of promises, do you intend to hold him to them?

Give us a note when your wealthy employers decide their bucks are too precious to pay you anymore. I think the point is that wealthy people are no different than non-wealthy people in their behavior. Just because they're wealthy doesn't impart any supernatural or godlike qualities to them. They employ you because they get something useful from you. If they find they stop getting that, don't need it any more, or that you're not living up to what they expect, you'll be gone.

FrJack,

I don't think that I implied that the wealthy are "godlike". You are absolutely right that people are people, wealthy or not and I couldnt agree with you more about that. So why all the hatred for the wealthy simply because they are wealthy? Not everyone who is rich got that way by screwing people over, some did, but not all. It's really irrelevant anyway, we need wealthy people whether we like them or not, they pay us and I would certainly expect to be let go if I wasnt performing the job I was hired to do, why should they keep me on if I wasnt?

I don't know why you persist in equating being realistic with hatred. Some of the people I admire in this country are quite wealthy, but it's not their money I admire. I see it as the other way around in rightwing land.

Oh for crying out loud! Realistic? You are so obviously pissed off and jealous of the rich. And no it's not the money that I ever admire about anyone, it's the work ethic, I think that shows in everything I've written. I honestly don't know where you are coming up with all this stuff but you are really cranky and angry about something, there is no doubt about that.

Incredulous, I'm almost tempted to suggest you change your name to Illiterate. There is no hatred in anything I've written. You continue to build this straw man defense and I continually blow it down. Stop reading your thoughts into my words.

No one is knocking hard work or wanting to better yourself. In fact it is just the opposite. There are millions of people that work hard and don't make a living wage. No one is saying that all rich people are bad or no poor people take advantage of the system. But there is something wrong when the average real earnings are dropping and the wealthy are getting wealthier, faster. This can not be sustained. It is a recipe for depression and / or civil strife.