Where's my free Obama phone?

nemesis, if you're making minimum wage, you're probably not paying any federal income taxes.

tthompson,3rd base? that would be true of Romney if he did not give all his inheritence away when his father died. He worked his own ventures to earn what he has today. Many people run hedge funds. Why are they not villified for earning money that way. I guess when you run for office it only becomes a problem. Same thing happened to Eric Hovde. People are blame you for success, especially if you are extremely successful.

It's not quite so bad living on $15K/year if you have an Obama phone.

What no one seems to think about in this discussion is why can't the government do with less just as families are having to do. Instead of raising the minimum wage - which gets some people in a higher tax bracket, which makes them pay more in taxes - what about lowering the taxes paid over all to make up for that supposed increase in wages. So instead of raising the wages to $9.80 per hour, decrease the taxes by that much. People would have more in take home pay - more people could spend more of their discretionary money - businesses would see an uptick in sales and government would see more in tax money coming in without putting some smaller businesses out of business.

What it sounds like you want a the same pay for all -- scoialism, thats a different system. You can move to Russia for that.

If that's what you think socialism is, you need to do some reading.

Good point RAF. The best line I've heard regarding Mr. Romney is that he was born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple. Just sayin...

Look at all the delightful pontification. It never ceases to amaze how some get all curfluffled when questioned on a position. For instance definition of work or in the evilness of being rich (white and republican only) declaring money given even if helped wasn't earned so as like it doesn't count for anything. Folks having to defend these points declare their view is above reproach. As kid pointed out, I have declared before everyone has opinions (of course that was over the discussion of when is a life a life). Regardless, having an opinion or point of view, doesn't make it holly or without question; nor right/wrong.

Much like the previously disproved belief of mind-reading from the written word, declaring a person didn't work for something (because you think so) doesn't make it correct.

So if workers are being unfairly compensated I have two easy questions.

1. What is fair?
2. Who decides what is fair?

LMAO. Good posts kai.

You should let it end on this though...

'What it sounds like you want a the same pay for all -- scoialism, thats a different system. You can move to Russia for that.'

Anyone who gets that out of your posts, is clearly not in this for the discussion as much as they are to merely know more than you.

kai -- dont forget -- when you take a little from all for the CEO or others, dont forget, you have line managers making 50-100k, you have design engineers making that, you engineering managers making a little more, you have middle managers making 100-150k. So when you add it up... the guys responsible for how much revenue and profit? What it sounds like you want a the same pay for all -- scoialism, thats a different system. You can move to Russia for that.

kai -- Lets define what you mean -- because you dont make much sense. Cut at the top... where does it end. If you cut the top -- to be fair all should take a cut. Cutting just the top solves little. There may be a few cents on the dollar once spread out. Your problem is envy -- not all are compensated the same -- nor should they be. Most people in the labor force would not want to travel say 50% and completely miss watching the children grow up. Many couldnt handle the stress of traveling on their health. Because you may have made one trip or even a few it sounds like you know it all. The reality is -- you dont. Lets talk about that guys that makes more -- he is responsible for how many jobs ?? 100, 1000, 10000, 100000. So take a few cents per hour of every job he is reposnible for and see if that adds up.

Ezoner,
Perhaps I am not understanding your statement very clearly. I will say, if you expect someone to think that flying business/first class from the United States to Japan is hard work, then I have to question what your idea of hard work is. Of course the is more involved than just flying, but it seems you are equating hard work to time spent. A lot of time spent on a cushy seat, being waited on, does not mean someone is working hard.

Still, a business person who travels a lot is likely doing work. However, who decides that their work is worth more than their workers'? Getting back to my main objection, in many cases, workers are being unfairly compensated. The money would have to come from somewhere, and those at top don't want to take a pay cut themselves. Often, the solution has been to sell higher, or restructure. It is rare, but does happen, that the top executives take a pay cut in order to pay their employees more.

Tim,
It is entertaining. Similar to the way RAF is now comparing what I said about work, to what Bill Clinton said about the word "is". It becomes even more so entertaining when one considers the reference I made earlier to Mitt Romney having a high income for 2011, despite not working at all.

The comedy doesn't stop here. There was a person (thatwaseasy) who repeated a request for someone (anyone who posts comments on this website) to give an example of when Obama did something nice for someone else that didn't involve tax payer money. In response, I essentially told the person they should not be asking people who haven't had personal contact with Obama, because such people would be considered a poor source. To emphasize my point, I hypothetically asked if anyone can give an example of when Romney did something nice for someone else with money he worked for.

Notice how the response RAF gave was actually strikingly similar to the response I gave to thatwaseasy. There was one major difference, though. I didn't attempt to make up some examples of where Obama has done something nice for someone else. Even though I am confident such examples exist, it would be foolish of me to pretend I can actually account for those examples. RAF, on the other hand, apparently knows of times when Mitt helped someone with money he worked for. At least that seems to be his pitch, but I'm not buying it.

But, you know, why focus on the conversation that actually took place? I shouldn't expect RAF to take a comprehensive approach. He has pointed out several times that he gets the impression I can read minds. I do expect that if he is going to directly comment on a response I gave to someone else, he would at least review the dialogue that took place (if it is available). I also expect that if he makes vague mention to one of my central points (RAF implied Mitt worked for the money he donated to others), and I respond by clarifying my stance via direct reference to a supporting topic already discussed or defined, RAF would either eliminate the confusion or ask for further clarification.

Actually, no, I don't expect that of RAF. I expect that of most people. With many people, I even have a great deal of patience, and I will attempt to tactfully enlighten them. I've already been there with RAF, though. More than once. That's why I stated already, I'm done explaining anything to him. It is always a waste of time.

kai -- obviously you do not -- you are only proving your total incompetence or bias.

So work is now as hard to define as "is" is?

Good play kid, if you notice I never stated he couldn't have his view I did suggest who he could ask to answer his question; but hey why quibble over the truth, ehh.

Ezoner,
I lived in Japan for two years. That flight is not hard, nor is it work.

Have I ever mentioned that I've traveled to Germany before, as well? Also, not a hard flight.

Have you ever worked in the food industry? What about landscaping? Have you done any carpentry or construction? Have you done mechanical work?

It's not so simple, Ezoner. I'm not going to say only manual labor is hard. It seems that, unlike you, I have at least some understanding of the complexity of what we are talking about.

kai -- Look -- its pretty simple. The people that invest their money work just as hard -- or in cases I have seen, much harder than people that punch the clock everyday. Try taking a flight to Japan for a business trip, getting off the plane at 6AM after a 12-16 hr flight -- go straight to a meeting, then fly to Germany, another meeting then fly home. Its very hard work. Many more hrs.

Kai: Not that I'm stalking ol boy RAF or anything, but I commented on this when I saw it so it wasn't hard to find. This is a quote from RAF

"The very idea these people think there can only be "their" view is idiotic. The whole idea behind our country is understanding not all people have the same views"

http://gazettextra.com/news/2012/aug/23/...

Funny, huh??

Because, RAF, depending on how "work" is being defined, he didn't work for that money. jv93 hinted at it earlier. In his words, Romney made his money work for him.

I'm done trying to explain anything to you, though. You never want to see the world from any view point but your own. I actually have a bit of a disappointed laugh whenever someone on this website gets into an argument with you. It is almost always fruitless.

Take a look around you some time. I get along fine with plenty of people on this website who do not share many of my values. To name a few, jv93, Eagle1, and wislady. So what makes you different?

"Tell me one nice thing Mitt has done for someone else with money he worked for."
-
Why not ask the people/organizations he donated millions to?

dtb, and that is why you will buy Pepsi from that supplier. jv93 stated that a restaurant owner isn't forced to buy from a certain supplier.

Taco Bell is owned by Pepsi.

thatwaseasy,
Ask his family or close friends.

Tell me one nice thing Mitt has done for someone else with money he worked for.

brotherkoch
Oct 3, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
The poor are not even part of the conversation in politics. Nobody lobbies for them or speaks on their behalf.

Obama just makes the middle class more poor and uses them as props for his campaign.

Still looking for one liberal to tell me what kindness Barry as given that didn't involve tax payer money.

Nicksmom,

Actually I would have no problem if prices were someowhat higher, I could understand what the person said in english, and there were no forced compensation levels, -- people were just paid what the market sets for the price. I do not like external government determined wage controls -- nor price controls. Let the market set the price.

jv93, What you state is admirable and if everyone knew what might come their way in advance of all situations that could possibly occur then that would be understandable. but even in the best of situations your best attorney wouldn't be able to shield you from every possible problem. Sometimes you simply find yourself in a position that seems unreasonable. If you never have and you have always had your bases covered then I would suggest that you are a rare exception to the world of business.

Absent from the discussion is illegal immigration. They typically take jobs from citizens by accepting very low wages. Stop turning a blind eye to this practice & the market will naturally work itself out. However, don't complain when for example restaurant prices increase because they are paying wages to those authorized to work at a higher rate.

whz_bng- You haven't been out and around much, have you?
And where did you ever hear anyone say welfare made ppl "rich"?

The poor are not even part of the conversation in politics. Nobody lobbies for them or speaks on their behalf.

The reasons we do not hear from the poor on these comment sections are:


1)Apathy

2)Too busy working, trying to survive.

3) well, maybe some ARE lazy - name any segment of the population that doesn't have lazy people.

The reasons the voice of the wealthy is so overrepresented in politics .... That ought to be easy to figure out.

Government handouts will never make anyone rich. They only offer a subsistance level of poverty. Some people have to survive on it because of their situations. They deserve the help. However if you are able bodied and lazy you deserve to live at that level. You only rise above poverty by working.

If you know a franchise behaves that way don't do business with them. One famous for much worse tactics than you mention is Cold Stone Creamery. There's something called "due diligence" before entering into such an agreement. And it is your responsibility as investor to perform it. That's why they have attorneys in the world.

Thompson -- ok -- where does it end.... Only healthcare??? Thats all --

Lets say you are driving your PAID off car -- someone runs a red light, your car is totaled. Insurance only pays a portion of that -- you would have had years of additional use, now you have an unplanned car payment or expense. What about all the damaged goods you had -- maybe you were carrying a new 55" TV at the time. There are thousands of expamples where people incur hardship and challenege. We cannot and should not expect the government to pay for it all, and to redistribute income to cover my loss.

I will extend this to a 401K... I was not negligent -- I invested -- saved money -- didnt overextend my credit.... yet say I lost $150k in the market .. shouldnt the government reimburse me that loss ?? I was responsible, others created that problem -- I dont even care for the purpose of discussion who -- but nothing I did was a cause. That means any future compensation for investment and my total net worth was set back severly...

jv93, I don't know if things have changed in recent years, but typically franchisees such as Taco Bell used to have agreements with franchisors to buy only certain products from approved suppliers. I doubt that very many Taco Bells serve Coke, for ex. This is in response to your comment below.

"Nobody is forcing the that restaurant owner to purchase that soft drink from that supplier,"

I think it's a shame that if the Dems had their way, and taxed to the max....Mitten's kids would have to live on allowance of less than $15,000 per month.

This article might have a place for discussion if its title wasn't flawed. There is no one in America that is "forced" to live on $15,000.

It isn't governments job to figure out how individuals should improve their lives. The opportunity exists, that is enough.

Each of us can make our own luck.

'Someday you will think back to those days and laugh. Even though you are not laughing now, I assure you, you will someday.'

Unless you get strickin with an illness and are forced into a long term hospital stay, then you won't chuckle at the lack of insurance. Instead you will think about how you were a single payer program away from not going bankrupt for health reasons.

Also, TheKai for president!!

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawki...

Can anyone name one act of kindness in Barry's past that didn't involve taxpayer money?

In regards to your situation. Many of us have been there and done that. I could tell you maddening stories. There were many days I had $20 in my account and 10 days until the next paycheck. Right after I had generated 10's of thousands of dollars for my employer! And you had better hope nothing happens because I had no health insurance. Someday you will think back to those days and laugh. Even though you are not laughing now, I assure you, you will someday.

Kai, I forgot one other thing which I believe you were onto. Some companies "huge profits" might be misleading. It is completely true that in this environment if you can hoard cash you should. What you see as huge profit is the company actually hoarding cash. The $64k question for you is why would a company hoard cash? What has occurred recently that would have caused most business owners or CEOs to almost soil themselves in fear? Why would hoarding cash help them? I'll give you a hint. Warren Buffet eqautes this to oxygen.

jv93,
I don't buy soft drinks. But even if people are aware of the cost (or lack there of) to manufacture the syrup, that won't change anything. When people buy food, they want a drink. Further, marketing strategies just about guarantee people will keep buying the drinks (make it a combo for just $1.99 more).

Telling someone not to work for a company like that is a laugh, too. On one hand, conservatives are saying people need to stop looking for those high paying jobs and just take anything they can get, even if that means working at McDonald's for a few years. On the other hand, here you are, telling people not to accept a low paying job. It doesn't matter what you say, people need income to survive in today's society.

Do you think I enjoy making minimum wage? I'm still completing my engineering degree, but I have my associate's degree with honors, I am a veteran, a Marine, I have basic knowledge of mechanics, I know how to be an effective leader, I have extensive experience in security (and had a valid security license until very recently), I have proficient clerical skills, and I have an outstanding work ethic. Yet, I was only able to land a job for minimum wage, working in the food industry. I tried to get a better job all summer, and didn't get any calls back until right before the school year started back up, and I was no longer available for work.

It isn't easy to find a decent paying job, and sometimes it isn't even an option. What I do know is I am not being fairly compensated for my work, and that's because someone else wants to make easy money. That is what greed does, and that is at the heart of what's wrong.

No, I don't have any tears for anyone who lost money playing the stock market. I don't agree with how our system is set up. Do I weep for those who go to Vegas and lose big? No.

It might be helpful to remember where I am coming from, with all of this. Regardless of how the system "works" right now, the simple fact is, money cannot actually create money. Money doesn't "work" for anyone. It's a sham to say it does. Somehow, someone, somewhere, is getting shafted. I know that if I put energy into a system, and my goal is to achieve energy, the best possible outcome is that I receive the same amount of energy that I put in. With that in mind, I am not going to retire on someone elses back. I'm going to retire on my own work.

If everyone else had that attitude, then we really would have that free market you talk about. However, the system is designed such that people are compelled to invest in 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement accounts. Most people don't know or understand how their money is being used, though.

Ezoner, I'm happy you realize those are two different situations you were talking about.

jv93, I wanted to point out one other thing about the study you cited versus the study I cited. The study you cited measures the percentage of Americans who own stocks. The study I cited measures the percentage of stocks owned by individuals. The difference in what the two studies are measuring is enormous.

Poo -- I have both situations....

We also have Obama-gate
U.S. diplomats in Libya repeatedly asked the Obama administration for more security in Benghazi in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate — but were 'denied these resources

jv93, I appreciate you supplying the link, but I'm skeptical of a self-reporting study versus a scholarly study such as the Stanford study.

I can see from Ezoner's comments that there's a lot of confusion about voting of stock held by 401ks, which is the issue you initially raised, jv93. Stocks held by 401ks remaining in the "street name" or in the name of the 401k trustee are indeed voted by the 401k trustee. Some 401k funds make provisions for individuals to advise the trustee how they want their shares voted, by it is the trustee who has the vote. Ezoner is confused by the issue of stock that apparently has been transferred into his name. Unless that stock has been transferred into his name, he is in no way voting those shares, even if he thinks he is.

Many people don't realize but you can buy stock from many companies directly and not even go through a broker or fund manager. Many times you can buy in small lots with little or no commission charged.

Second paragraph:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21...

In the end you own the companies. Don't like how that fund manager votes in proxy elections? Move your money or better yet manage it yourself! In the end the ball ends up back in your court through choice. Freedom, it is a....well you get the picture.

Poo -- lie some more -- I do recieve proxies and vote frequently (well at least annually). They are for shares of companies I have worked for in the past -- where I hold direct shares of those companies in the 401K. Not fund based companies -- I would never expect to vote for fund based investments -- no more than I would expect a pension plan to ask me how they would handle the pension money.

You guys are the biggest liers I have ever seen put something into printed words.

Ezoner, I saw your reply and thought perhaps you were going to make an announcement about which "free market" country you'd chosen to move to. Instead just another shift; this time away from your free market fantasies to suppression of the military vote.

iv93 said, "In terms of CEO pay. The board of directors makes those decisions and guess who they are elected by? Yep, shareholders. And who are the shareholders? Anybody who has a 401K. So when the average American worker points to the CEO and gets angry remember there are three fingers pointing right back at you."

jv93, there are at least two problems with your statement. According to a recent (December 2010) study done by the Stanford Graduate School of Business, individual citizens now own 30% of stocks. That is down from 90% at the end of World War II. Of that 30%, it is estimated 20% of that is in 401k plans. Which means approximately only 6% of stocks are owned by 401k plans.

Additionally, when is the last time that your 401k asked you for your proxy during a corporate vote to elect board members or resolve other shareholder resolutions? The shares in your 401k are voted by the 401k managers.

Poo -- They work is a relative term. They buy votes period. Walters arguement is that there is always 5% or more unemployement -- the reality is that there should be trunover in that 5%. Thats its NOT the same 5% all the time. That the benefits payed out in some cases come from the same social security $$ that was never intended to pay that money as do most government collected $$ via taxes. There is nothing that says that the SS money paid in goes or ever will go to pay the benefits of those that worked. Social programs are nothing but buying votes. Just as suppression of the military vote -- maybe they will use the SS $$ to pay for corporate defense of not sending out the warn notices. Obama is shameless in what he does to hide his misappropriation of tax $$. The guy is a total sham and a shame to all.

Amen jv93

redtop49 said, "The reason its hard to get rid of these programs is not hard to figure out, people will always vote for free stuff."

The reason it's hard to get rid of socialistic programs is because they work and the people recognize that. Walter alluded to this in an earlier comment about Social Security and how we had elderly Americans living and dying in abject poverty prior to Social Security.

Nothing is free; you should know that by now. 

The left should admit just because you believe in free market economy you're not for the rich and against the poor, but I guess that wouldn't win as many elections.
I'm a working class dude but don't buy liberal fallacies, yes I'm being nice because there lies and they know it.

I would recommend some reading to change your perspective F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, or even Milton Friedman.

To both of you,
The answer is quite simple then, don't buy their products or work for them. There are many companies that I refuse to do business with. Nobody is forcing the that restaurant owner to purchase that soft drink from that supplier, just like nobody is forcing the customer to buy a soft drink at an establishment for $2.19 which is crazy. If its a big scam, don't buy it! Nobody is also forcing the employee to work for the employer. Its about choice and if they allow themselves to be taken for a ride that is up to them. The company gets away with charging that much for soft drinks because the market will bear that price. Don't even get me started on energy drinks. The market is not always rational and there are numerous products that shouldn't even exist but if people want to buy them they feel it is a good value for them to purchase that product. Have at it. If more people said no, make no mistake, Pepsi would be forced to rethink their strategy. Now in respects to corporate profits and ceo pay. Where were all the tears when shareholders were losing 40 percent of the the value of their stock and elderly Joe whose life savings went down the drain because he was loyal to company and owned only GM stock? There were no tears for those people when profits were deep in the red so now many folks want blood because labor is cheaper? Sorry, that's the way the market works. Sooner or later the pendulum will swing back to labor. It always does. For the purposes of our discussion, I don't know any business owners, which include mostly small and medium sized businesses that are recording huge profits. So you can post all the links you want but I don't see that in the environment right now. In terms of CEO pay. The board of directors makes those decisions and guess who they are elected by? Yep, shareholders. And who are the shareholders? Anybody who has a 401K. So when the average American worker points to the CEO and gets angry remember there are three fingers pointing right back at you.

It does frighten me, almost all the socialist programs are in trouble, I find it hard to see why people want less freedom.

The reason its hard to get rid of these programs is not hard to figure out, people will always vote for free stuff.

truthteller, you seem to have a difficult time comprehending the difference between communism and socialism. You and I participate in socialistic programs every day of our lives in America. That doesn't mean we are communists. But we are, without a doubt, living in a country that practices a good deal of socialism and has for many, many decades. Does that frighten you?

I'm not going to read all the comments but this is Liberal fantasy, there is no consensus by economists, most are in the camp that artificially inflating wages hurts jobs, good for the people that have jobs not for people looking because they won't get hired. This is a big problem in Europe with all the Gov. intervention and regulations new jobs are not created and they have huge unemployment of younger workers. People working at minimum wage aren't looking to stay there it's a job until they get a different job or training to move up, quit making it seem like people are static.
Someone making this would be on other handouts anyways so 15000. is not what they would be living on. The left should get some different talking point other than class envy their policies don't work. I would suggest she read an updated book on the depressions policies many of these same ideas were tried and did not work unless you feel 15yrs is a quick recovery.

Poobah- yeah and you should move to China since they are in line with your views.

Ezoner said, "However, it is and should be the market that sets the value of that work, not the government. Its simple -- instead of changing the most successful democracy in the world, there are many places that you could go to where you would be much happier -- without destroying the very fabric of our country. In fact -- those of us that believe in the free market -- welcome you to move on."

If you truly believe in free markets, Ezoner, you should practice what you preach and become a citizen of one of the following: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius or Ireland. They all have more economic freedom than America. [ http://www.heritage.org/index/default ] The American government has interfered with free markets almost since the inception of our government.

jv93,
I see what you are saying, and I am glad that Walter has apparently done the footwork I was planning to do. The problem is there are people posting record profits. I would actually argue that most likely (I admit I have not done the research) for decades corporate profits and executive salary have been much higher than what they should be.

Where does it hurt? You are 100% correct, unskilled labor is not being rewarded very well right now. The best example I can come up with, off the top of my head, is fast food/franchises. The individual small business owners are definitely getting the shaft. They pay their employees what they can, but that's not much. Yet, the corporations themselves are not struggling one bit.

Take Taco Bell for example. Some people know that Taco Bell is actually owned by Pepsi (I think it is technically Pepsico, or something along those lines). The main business is to sell soft drinks. The small business owner who runs a Taco Bell is paying $50+ for a box of syrup, however, that same box of syrup costs the manufacturer pennies. Have you ever noticed that these fast food chains try to sell soft drinks more than anything else? They even sell food that will make the customer thirsty, so they can sell more soft drinks.

Further, if you look at the "deals" offered, then think of what the actual cost is of a drink (to the manufacturer), there is usually no deal at all. In many cases, the entree + the side is only a few cents less than the meal (that includes a drink) itself. It's a big scam. Soft drinks are sold at an unimaginable markup, and the manufacturer cheats the small restaurant owner, the owner has to cover her behind, so she ends up cheating the employees.

This is what greed does. Greed is not a good thing.

By the way, in your system of checks and balances, how do the soft drink manufacturers get away with charging such a high markup?

Just a general thought here people, after being presented with facts and figures or links to articles presenting facts and figures a response filled with statements like "yeah well I know these people that are getting away with (blank)" or "one time I saw this guy doing (blank)" lacks any credibility. Please, save yourself the embarrassment....or don't.

Name calling: the sign that you can no longer rationally defend your position. Stay classy, Ezoner.

"Henry Ford famously elected to pay his workers more than he needed to, with the goal of enabling them to buy the company's cars. This idea would be heresy in today's boardrooms, where the emphasis is on paying employees as little as you possibly can--and, thereby, driving every penny possible to the bottom line. Hopefully, soon, more companies will see the wisdom of Henry Ford's thinking and begin to share their unprecedented wealth with their employees."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-smit...

jv93,
You say "nobody is knocking down the bank with profits right now." I beg to differ. We are actually seeing corporate profit margins at the highest they've ever been. Sadly, wages are sitting at an all time low. Read on...
http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate...
http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-smit...

And besides most employers right now aren't focused on raking in those huge profits. They are focused on keeping the doors open and covering the payroll. That's all anybody is doing right now. I don't care what your business is nobody knocking down the bank with profits right now.

I don't disagree with what your saying but you might be happy to find out that as an employer that even if I wanted to pay somebody grossly under what the market dictates, I can't. They either choose not to work for me or I get substandard employees. See my comments regarding the whining CEO of a local company complaining about how she can't find welders when she wants to pay them 40 percent below market. Then somehow it's the states fault. Employers are under a lot of pressure especially from skilled workers and this is not likely to ease up as the economy recovers. Greed is good and fuels the whole system. Free individuals seeking to maximize their earnings in the marketplace all have market forces acting on them in a system of checks and balances. Right now the market is not favoring unskilled or low skilled labor. That may change and indeed some manufacturers are already learning the hard way that off shoring is not necessarily the big money saver it was in the past. Someday the market pendulum will swing back in labors favor. It is an inevitability.

jv93,
I must apologize for my elongated absence. I was busy all weekend, but I have not forgotten to do the extra homework you sent me.

I most appreciate you taking the time and having the patience to try to show me how you base your argument. It surely has educated me on some concepts.

However, I do believe that perhaps I have not done a very good job communicating how I base my beliefs.

In the link, there was mention to the same thing you asked me. The article stated that life is not zero sum. From the perspective of the Law of Association, it is easy to see how one could conclude life is not zero sum. However, even within this law, there were some admissions of omission.

Of course, the author had to simplify quite a bit in order to make his points clear and (hopefully) easily understandable. We know that the real world is not that simple though.

I also simplify the situation when I talk about a system where in order for one person to gain, someone else loses. However, instead of eliminating variables as the author to the article you linked me did, I generalize and attempt to include all variables.

One way to look at it, is to realize that money is only a symbol. The paper money is printed on, itself, is not very special. It doesn't do a person a lot of good, if no one else also values that paper. Likewise, from the example you gave (through the link), both fish and berries are just symbols. A carpenter, for instance, has little use for a berry. However, if a lumber jack values the berry, the carpenter may find value in the berry as well.

So in the end, what do these symbols and currency ultimately represent? Energy. And energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only be manipulated.

Getting back to the point, though. What I am saying is not that the wealthy should be forced to pay for the luxuries of the poor. Rather, I am saying the wealthy should feel compelled to compensate another woman's or man's hard work. The culture we live in today promotes greed and selfishness, and that is what needs to change. In a nut shell, I believe honest work deserves honest compensation, not a shake down.

Ezoner,
So you personally know many people gaming the system. You knowingly work your butt off so they can do nothing. You sound quite devoted to enabling those that want a handout. You also want those receiving public assistance to show up at some job that was made up for them. Who's going to supervise them? They'll either have to create a position fill by a state employee to supervise them or contract a private sector firm to take on the responsibility. Either way, tax payer dollars are being spent. Your other suggestion is that we should train some of the unemployed. How does that get paid for? Sounds like more tax payer money being spent.

Agreed thompson -- The government is not run as a business. There is no management of profit and loss.... Its is always working at a loss.

You're both right. From a business owners perspective you need to spend(invest) money to make money. From a consumers standpoint you need to make money before you can spend it.

Carry on...

Walter - you are just proving how ignorant you are -- you have to spend money to make money --- NOT all backwards -- you need to make money to spend money..

Look -- the problem I have is that if the taxes collected were truely spent on the items (excuses) it were collected for -- we would have rebuilt every bridge in the country 10 times over. But it doesnt. It all goes to the general fund and never gets spent or allocated as advertised.

Now I would also mention that I personally know many people -- gaming the system. SOme are relatives, some are freinds, some rent my properties... They all are gaming the system. I watch them all live all the fruits of my hard work, while they laugh and enjoy life. So while I enjoy my work, I have some fun, I work my but off so that others -- many- can do nothing. Its time for that to end. They all need to pick up a broom, a mop , a pencil or computer amd work. Not one of the individulas is prevented from being contrbuting member to society. Making income. But we have created a system of governemnt dependency. Maybe we should have them actually employed and have to show up for work to collect their check from the government. Maybe they would develop an attitude of self worth.... Or maybe they would just show up and stare at the wall. Either way -- they should be required to be present. To produce some level of work/effort. Not just collect a check becuase they feel they can make more off the system. If so, the system is broke, not the business model. Maybe if life challeneged them a little there would fewer. Maybe if they had to attend training to devellop a skill they would see a value in the worth and identity. ALthough I cannot prove it -- I would say 10% of the people I know on government asistance are actually unable to provide for themselves. They choose not to, because the system will.

Walter- Yes, I'm sure the SSA works real hard to "find" these things out for sure to try to outrun the scammers.....That's why I've seen people on "disability" playing contact sports and roofing their house and others eating junk food and watching tv 8 hours a day while morbidly obese on "disability".
AGAIN, I wonder how many working people know this comes out of the "social security" they pay.
What makes it doubly worse is that wages over and above, what, 80 thousand aren't taxed for "social security.....you probably agree with me there.

Those poor people are geniuses the way they can outfox the system. Just the other day I saw one on breitbart.com video etc etc

Meanwhile, billionaires like me (and Tom Ricketts, Cubs Owner) give millions to GOP campaigns and what do we get in return...nothing. It's all out of the Goodness of our Hearts.

Maybe I can hire some of those poor folk to lobby for us persecuted wealthy. Sniff sniff... nobody likes us.

First, truth1, you don't get unemployment if you quit your job because you don't want to work. If you do quit, then tell the Dept of Workforce Development that you were laid off or fired for unintentional poor performance AND the employer doesn't respond to Workforce Development's request for their side of the story, it's possible that you could defraud the state. But if you quit your job and are honest when you apply for benefits, you will be denied.
Also, this is directly from the Social Security-disability website:
"It is not possible at this point in time to receive Social Security Disability benefits based solely on Drug Addiction. The Social Security Administration (SSA) will not grant disability benefits to people with disabilities that have been caused or worsened by addiction.

If Drug Addiction is deemed immaterial to your disability, it is possible that the SSA will grant your disability claim. If, however, the SSA finds that your addiction materially affects your disability, it will not grant your application for disability benefits."
Clearly, truth1, you have been misinformed, but a link to that article would be helpful. Please post it if you have the time. Here's the link to the page I quoted:
http://www.socialsecurity-disability.org...

And, yes, it is "social security" DISABILITY......so it is the same fund.

Walter- As a matter of fact there was an article a few weeks back descibing just such a case......They get "Disability" because they are incapable of working and it doesn't matter the reason behind it....Kind of like quitting your job because you just don't want to work and getting unemployment, only easier but a longer process.

Some choose the obesity route, get too heavy to move around>>>get "Disability".

truth1,
Do you have some sort of evidence showing that social security funds, specifically, are being given directly to drug users?

Ezoner,
Fortunately, in the real world studies are done and state investigators work very hard to cut down as much waste, fraud and abuse. Your "most of the people I know" story holds about as much water as a bucket with no bottom.
It seems you would like unemployment and other benefits to not be paid at all or to be paid in amounts that are much less than the recipient's previous wage.
As I already pointed out and you clearly ignored, unemployment is never at zero. Would you have people lose their vehicles and homes to a prolonged period of unemployment? Wouldn't the trauma of losing a home and the severe inconvenience of losing a vehicle make finding another job that much more difficult? Clearly under your plan, just getting food to eat would be nearly impossible for someone that has happened upon hard times. I suppose you find unredeemable faults in public education and municipal services such as trash pick up, road & bridge maintenance, police & fire services, etc as well, am I right? I know you abhor the "public sector leeches" as you call them. The rest of us give them the respect they deserve by calling them "officer" or "sir" or "maam". Don't you realize that public assistance programs and government regulation of business and finance is meant to protect the viability of the middle class. It is middle class consumer spending that drives the economy. What may seem like an assault on profit in the short term leads to more spending power in the hands of the middle class in the long term which ultimately makes for a more profitable business environment. You have to spend money to make money. If you're really a businessman, I'm sure you've heard that before. You seem to fear money in the hands of the government and convey that fear through some hyperbolic dystopian vision where the government has all the money and we're all under the government's control. Somehow the other side of that coin where the 1% controls all the money doesn't give you pause in the slightest. It has become obvious that you are either of the 1% or spend a lot of time grovelling at their feet, so it's no wonder that you are so daft and arrogant that you believe that you have the authority to judge someone else's opinion either "right" or "wrong".

How are working people going to like it when they discover that the "social security"(FICA?)money that is taken out of their paychecks is going to people who CHOSE to mess up their lives with drugs, etc.?....so that hey won't have it when they want to "retire"

Walter -- actually the idea that people are chosing to not work is 100% correct in most cases. Most of the people I know chose one of several path's.

1) not to work for less than they previously made until unemployment ran out.
2) Seek disability once unemployemnt runs out
3) collect other assistance / from multiple programs

The reality is that once the government benefits exceed and in some ways grossly exceed employment pay and benefits, the desire to work and self worth disappears. I dont expect you to understand as you are incapable or unwilling to understand what self reliance us and means. You are all about singling out one bad story or event to turn that into a massive bloated reason for tax , spend, and income (robinhood theory) distribution. Basically socialism. It becomes pointless to discuss the point as you are unwilling to see nor accept reality and people, so you continue to attempt to control more and more as the impact of one control affects human behavoir and requires additional controls which continues a never ending loop. Until such time as we are all dependent upon the government and then they can give us whatever they want as they then have all the money, all the power. You far lefts concentrate on the 1% er's yet ignore that the controls implemented affect everyone. More regulation -- less profits, I need less employees, more benefits, less employees, more pricing control on business, less employees..... its never ending -- unless the government takes over all business -- then you get paid for sweeping a street via your government benefits...

We could discuss this forever, but the simple point is -- you are wrong, and cant see it.

Walter- You're also understating the fraud and abuse.....Maybe those who live totally by fraud and abuse are few percentagewise, but I would argue that the MAJORITY getting "assistance" are abusing it to a greater or lesser degree and that is a LOT of cumulative abuse.....The system has been ripe for abuse for decades.

Walter-
If you're going to support total irresponsibility, where do you draw the line?
Are you going to tax productive people to the point that they have no incentive to produce anything anymore?..The country is going fast in that direction...What happens when the majority does that?

truth1,

The idea that welfare recipients live in the lap of luxury is what I was referring to as a red herring. I can't deny that a small minority of people are able to eke out a meager existence with no plans of improving their situation. Fraud and abuse amount to low single digits in terms of percentage of those drawing public assistance. There will always be those that try to game any system. Perhaps you've heard of off shore accounts and tax havens.
As to your question about single mothers of little to no means with multiple children, what do you suggest? Population control? Forced abortions? Sterilization? Not allowing benefits so the state can use a starving child as a method of sending a message to the mother? Seperating mother from child so the state can raise the child in what amounts to an orphanage? This all sounds like it smacks of big brother style governmental control to me. Do you have other suggestions?

Ezoner,
You assume that any highly motivated and hard working has no impediments or outside influences limiting their ability to obtain and maintain a steady and long term career with a decent living wage. Under your assumptions, the only people not working are choosing not to work. That idea is not just wrong. It indicates mental instability. You say that I propose solutions without considering the long term effects. I would say any system that favors profit over people does the exact same thing. Do you realize the interpretation of capitalism that you've been laying out in detail here does little more than limit the value of a human life to the amount of labor that can be wrung out of it. Your take on the 2008 financial collapse is as myopic as the rest of your ideas. You completely ignore the fact that the deregulated financial industry allowed for investment banks and ratings agencies to work in concert to rate collateralized debt obligation made up completely of sub prime mortgage debt to be rated AAA even after it became known that the houing market was nothing but a house of cards. It also allowed for a financial product called a credit default swap to be created and sold that could not only eliminate risk but create profit based on a forelosure epidemic within the housing market. Bad debt was being sold as investments and then investments were being created based on the knowledge that bad debt was being sold in order to profit on the inevitable losses of others. If you think that didn't fuel the boom in mortgage lending, you are clearly suffering from intense confirmation bias. Then to top it all off banks had been allowed, through deregulation, to become so big that if they were legitimately bankrupted, that the entire American economic system would fail. Thus, they were given large sums of money to say afloat which they either didn't use or badly mishandled. Now a few short years later, there are dozens of Republican candidates, including the party's nominee for the office of President, that would put us back into the regulatory position that got us in the mess in the first place.

Walter- I was with most of what you said until you said a "welfare queen" was a red herring.
.....No, I don't think so.....Getting pregnant outside of marriage with no other means and doing so more than once means what?

Walter you entire premise is invalid. COmpanies get nowhere by applying zero value to their employees. Qualified, competent employees are payed based upon their value in the marketplace. All empoyees have the ability to make career changes. Some choose not to -- so the government is to step in?? Some jobs are valued less than others, some products are valued less than others. By your rules, should the government then set the price of goods in the marketplace?? In order to support the wages you suggest -- some companies would need to charge more, or they would lose money -- some competitors are forgeign -- so are we then to set pricing through import protection to ensure wages?? You cannot go down the path you are on and expect total control without sacraficing more than you want in terms of freedom and economic control over your own life. The reality is that your system cannot and does not work, and for all your so called inteligence you cannot see why.

You are like most far left liberals and socialists, that fix a problem in front of you without considering the full effects of the fix and in the end cause more disruptions that cause more controls -- which go on and on untill all freedoms -- all economic sense is gone.

Oh -- and I would argue that the very reason for the 2008 collapse was the very envy that you say doesnt exist.... It was free liquidity based upon a failed model of future value, with teh desire to allow all to achieve the same level of wealth.

Nobody forces anybody to do anything in a free market system. If the factory owner does not pay his workers well he will not be able to build a good product and nobody will buy his products. He also is under market pressure. The level quality product he seeks to have will determine how well he pays his workers. This tin foil hat idea you have that super rich people are conspiring to control people is well...half brained as you say. And this idea of mandating "a livable wage" is...can we bifurcate the brain any further than into halves? It's laughable. Mandate a wage and owners will just hire fewer people. Perhaps you are for forcing owners at gunpoint? It kind of sounds like it reading your previous posts. You're all revolution this and class that. The world has tried your way and it has failed miserably. As a matter of fact it usually ends with a lot of dead people laying the streets or people waiting in long lines for a square of bread. I guess to you that's Utopia.

jv93,
I agree to a certain extent, but there's a certain point where the every man for himself line of thinking has to be traded for basic human compassion. The reality is not everyone is going to be employed. Even when the economy is doing well, 5% of the labor force is out of work. Should we not worry about those folks because "life is not fair" as you say? Could you look a hungry child in the eye and say, "Life's not fair, kid"? Nobody's advocating for handing out cars. Sane people don't look at their neighbor as a crook for having a nice car. That's propaganda pushed by right wingers beholden to the agenda of certain super wealthy people that want to keep what's left of the middle class fighting amongst each other. A divided, misinformed group is much easier to control. When people look at their neighbor's nice car, they go to work (if they have a job) and work harder if the accumulation of possessions is what motivates them. When talking about a social safety net, we're talking about basic human needs like food, shelter and clothing. Anybody with half a brain knows the difference between wants and needs. You sound like you're on the verge of presenting the "welfare queen" argument which everybody with half a brain also knows is a complete red herring. My guess is you're also against the idea of mandating a decent living wage. Allowing the value of labor to be dictated by those who are biased by profit motive will only lead to more people unable to fill their basic needs or the needs of their children.

Ezoner,
Funny how you think public assistance artifically manipulates the market value of labor but unrestricted profit maximization tactics have nothing to do with it. Obviously you prefer the time of laissez faire government and robber barons of the early 1900's that led to the stock market crash of 1929 or more recently the deregulation push of the last 30 years that collapsed our economy in 07-08 and exposed the rapidly expanding income disparity chasm that is preventing a timely recovery of the US economy.

We also went wrong when the country began to believe everybody must be equal. Everybody must have the same size house, bank account, and drive the same kind of car. If your neighbor drives a nicer one he is a crook who steals from others and oppresses people. We also went wrong when we began to see wants as needs and in turn needs as rights. Perhaps like other societies we are destined for failure? If we continue with the above lines of thinking this is a certainty. The strong, talented, intelligent, and yes lucky, will have more stuff and achieve more. This is an irrefutable law of nature. It is not fair but in the end life is not fair. We usually begin to accept this at about age 10. Some never do.

Nicksmom,
People making a decent living wage are more comfortable, secure and confident. More comfortable, secure and confident employees are much more focused, have better attendance and are much more productive. Those types of employees help the businesses they work for grow through higher quality work which leads to more demand for the business's product which could lead to more hiring by that business. Decently paid, comfortable, secure, focused and productive employees also help the economy grow in general because they have more money to spend which creates demand for the products of other businesses. Higher wages are ultimately more beneficial. The problem is the long term economic health of the country is not the priority of American corporate community. Maximization of short term profit to make sure boards of directors are as rich as possible no matter if it's at the expense of an entire class of people is the priority. That is why the current incarnation of American capitalism will lead to the collapse of the system followed by a protracted class revolution in which the American dollar will become absolutely worthless and the ultra wealthy will be forced to trade their numerous houses, cars and other possessions just to feed themselves. It will be glorious. When all is said and done the people that actually run the means of production will take total control of that production. It will take the realization that the mutual agreement between hundreds of millions of people to use the dollar as the only means of exchange is what is keeping the working man from controlling his own life and destiny. If we collectively revolt against the idea of the dollar, we take all the power back. We must use our skills to feed clothe and house each other without the corrupted control that our currency holds over us. Once we do that, those that do the work become the leaders.

Walter -- your abohorence of private sector capitalist actually doesnt even come close for my distaste of the public sector leeches that live off the bones of my hard work and my individual success. I was the first (in my family history) to ever graduate from college. Not only graduate but also achieved a graduate degree as well. The socialist agenda -- the corrupt depedency between public sector employees and the government are at the heart of what is wrong in this country. This co-dependency -- corrupts the entire capitalist system and destroys its very intent to reward those that do work hard.

In short -- somehwere we went wrong as a nation -- mainly in believing all should have a college degree. Not all should. Some are better with theier hands at making things, much the same as an artist. However, it is and should be the market that sets the value of that work, not the government.

Its simple -- instead of changing the most successful democracy in the world, there are many places that you could go to where you would be much happier -- without destroying the very fabric of our country. In fact -- those of us that believe in the free market -- welcome you to move on. But simply attempting to play robinhood is not the answer and destroys the energy of those that seek and sometimes achieve success. All one has to do is look at socialist countries and the way that absolute wealth and power destroys a peoples desire to improve and succeed.

RAF,
We all know that you think socialism is a dirty word just like all the other people living within the Conservative bubble that can't comprehend the possibility that people with differing views might have ideas that actually work.

Ezoner,
I clearly used the word "many" when referencing the rich and how they use the system already tilted in their favor to obtain even more wealth. I never said all. Here's the false premise that you build your whole claim around: Everyone has the same opportunity to succeed.
Your belief in that reveals your ignorance. For this to be true it must be a possibility that within the system of capitalism every single person living within the system could, given ideal conditions, all be of the same financial means at the exact same time. Capitalism does not allow for this. Capitalism does not reward hard work in the way in which you describe. For the record, I believe you describe it in such ways disingenuously. Hard work can only get you so far within the system of capitalism. We're not all of the same intelligence level. I hardly studied in high school. I scored highly on college placement exams and graduated near the top of my class. I hardly studied in college and graduated with high honors. I attended both high school and college next to some incredibly hard working individuals. Rather than go to the cool parties with me in high school or the cool bars with me in college they stayed at home or went to the library to study for hours on end. They went to their instructors for extra help. They made use of tutoring services. They worked harder than I ever did many times over and some of those high school classmates work at McDonald's for next to nothing like those people described in the article above. Some of my collegemates have not fared much better. They're car salesmen or retail managers of other sorts barely making a living wage, definitely not enough to raise a family on. I sailed my way through school, probably because of a lucky genetic cocktail, and worked rather successfully in the private sector for a time, but found the whole idea of a capitalist system dirty, so I've made a home for myself in the public sector doing more honorable work. I live on much less than I used to, but the reward of helping people, yes with other people's tax money including my own, far outweighs the monetary reward I'm missing out on by being some capitalist's drone. Incidentally, I'm sure you'll be comforted by the fact that I pay part of my own salary when I pay my taxes. You're welcome.

Ezoner, your idea that charitable giving will sustain the downtrodden in this country was disproven decades ago when millions of America's seniors were dying in abject poverty. That's why Social Security came into existence. Where was the charitable giving from the privileged then? If it was so easy for those with means to make sure that those without didn't starve, why did the government ever even have the chance to start providing social assistance type services in the first place?
In 1936, six days before the Presidential election, sitting President FDR, running for reelection, gave the "I welcome their hate" speech. If you haven't heard it or read it, do yourself a favor. Anyway, it was in that speech that he introduced the second stage of the The New Deal. Today it would be labelled as a bloated stimulus package or some variation on the canned phrases the right enjoys using so much. Not only did FDR introduce that second tier of a huge public assistance program but he also stated that he wanted his first term to be known as the time that people working against his ideas of governmental involvement in public assistance and favored unfettered, unregulated capitalism met their match and his second term to be known as the time that those people met their master. Basically, he said he was going to make them his...well, I think you understand the prison analogy I was going to make. Anyway, as I said he laid all of this out 6 days before the Presidential election. He went on to win all but 8 electoral votes in that election.

There was a time in this country when people believed, en masse, in working together to make sure everyone had similar opportunities to get on their feet and stay on their feet. Wages increased at a rate that kept up with inflation and cost of living. Average working joes could live comfortably AND raise a family on one income for pete's sake! How possible is that, really, for a hard working individual unloading trucks at a Wal-Mart these days? As someone that's worked at upper management levels in retail, let me tell ya. It's not possible. Can those unloaders move up? Sure a few here and there. But what of those individuals who won't be able to rise any higher than that because they're of limited intelligence? This is capitalism, remember? Not everybody can be the boss or there wouldn't be anybody to do the work. There are far fewer boss jobs than those waiting to move up. If we don't make sure that those waiting to move up can work hard and earn a decent living wage while they wait, how long will they work before they become so discouraged that they just fall back into the system of assistance? And how desirable will it be for those already on assistance to aspire to those jobs if they know they'll barely be able to feed themselves while they toil away waiting for an opportunity to move up that may never come? Middle class jobs are disappearing. We're becoming a two class nation. The wealthy and the poor. This leads to nothing good. The rich have the opportunity to build the middle class, to give them jobs and wages worth working for. Instead we get a growing service sector with minimum wage jobs and manufacturing jobs being sent over seas. Then the job exporters blame the government for making it too hard to help the average American worker. Well, let's not get it twisted. What they're really saying is that the government is making it too difficult for them to make a profit, so rather than innovating and finding new ways to make a profit while still employing Americans, they tell the average joe to go hang while people overseas are being put to work because they can and will work for less. If you want to be capitalism's cheerleader, go for it. Just don't expect not to be challenged on it by those that know better.

Maybe they should get a 2nd job if they are only working part time..... That would allow them to make much more and would double their chances of getting hired at a greater wage with benefits. Hmmmmmm opportunity.

The far left and socialists will never understand simple economics. Well maybe they do and just want to concentrate all wealth at the very top. Their philosophy would wipe out the middle class and create a huge lower class. All depedent upon the government. They would also propose a dictatorship instead if democratically elected officials. Or they would support democratically elected officials like in Russia...

If you raise the minimum wage, people will probably lose their jobs / have hours cut. The money doesn't just drop out of the sky. It has to come from somewhere & most employers can't just absord a $2.55 per hour raise without having to cut back elsewhere.

Walter these people share your great ideas...

http://socialistparty-usa.net/principles...

Walter -- your rant is a false permise -- that those with more will achieve more. I see significant number of wealthy people and especially their children that fail to take advantage of this so called opportuntiy and those that do generally give back to community of their own free will. The difference that I see is whether you force or extract the wealth and re-distribute it or whether you allow those with the opportunity to give of their own free will. Your premise is that people, given the opportunity will NOT contrinute or add value. In our system people do give back, through donations and charitable contributions. The great inefficiency of the government has been displayed and the mistakes of over valued investment have been displayed in examples like Solyndra. Many of the programs that you mentioned -- while altruistic -- serve to keep most in the under achiever mode and count on the very benefits to exist -- opposed to programs and processes that encourage excellence and achievment.

Your tone also indicates that those with wealth somehow didnt achieve nor earn it. I take particualr offense to that as I have earned everything I have and resent that those in government feel they have the right to take it away and hand it over to others. There is nothing more grastifying than me personally -- handing something of value or employing someone that needs help. Generally -- I reward a good waitress and leave a penny for particularly bad service in order to send a message, that maybe you should find another career path. Simply increasing pay because you feel someone needs to earn more -- is not the answer is is exactly why unions are demonized. You need to earn your stake in the world, not have it handed to you.

What we have in capitalism is a system in which there must be winners and losers for the system to sustain itself. There's no denying that. That would be fine if everyone had the exact same opportunities from birth to succeed, but that is not the case. The children of the very successful have far more opportunities to retain and maintain that success than the children of the very poor to become financially successful. This is why public assistance programs exist. Here's what sours the whole capitalism thing. Many people on the successful end of capitalism are against the social safety net we have in place today. Not only do they think that the unfair advantages that the children of the rich have are deserved because the parents worked hard (maybe) for their riches, but they also believe that food stamps, housing and energy assistance, TANF, higher education grants, planned parenthood, Medicaid, a minimum wage, free and reduced lunch programs, etc are all terrible things. Why? My guess is because it affords the children of the people working for them that they pay peanuts too many, as they perceive them, undeserved opportunities. A rich person's child didn't earn the opportunities he/she has set up for them as they move through their early years. A poor person's child didn't earn the lack of opportunities they were born into. Leveling the playing play field is an important method of trying to maintain equilibrium in a capitalistic society. However, too many of the most fortunate in America resent the responsibility that comes along with success. They don't want to be a part of subsidizing the part of the system that allows the poor to perhaps work their way up into the more privileged classes. So now the government, specifically the tax code and electoral system, and the entire financial system have been hijacked by the very wealthy in order to procure even further and more blatantly unfair advantages for themselves. It wasn't enough for them to already have more than the other 99%.
Cont'd below>>>>>>>>>>

Cont'd from above>>>>
They had to set up fail safes to ensure that it is monumentally more difficult to reach the levels that they have or to even get close to those levels. 2 factors are at work here, either seperately or in tandem. One is that many of the rich view the whole thing as a game to be played. Many have all that they and their family will ever need for generations even if they never make another single dollar, so the only possible reason for them to want to hinder others is because they no longer see the system as anything other than their means of amusement even if it's at the expense of the well being of others. The other is pure unadulterated arrogance. Many of the ultra wealthy have a need to feel that what they've accumulated is an accomplishment that should not be duplicatable. They have a great disdain for those that have less yet hope to have more. Whether it's out of hubris or a sick sense of fun many of the wealthy push to further the damning disparities that are inherent to a capitalist system by kicking around canned phrases like welfare state, class warfare, entitlement system, government takeover, picking winners & losers, socialism and on and on. They do this to imply that capitalism is perfection and that even though, if left unfettered, capitalism in a society as large as our's would allow people to starve in the streets, the possibility of a better system does not exist. Since many people will take such propaganda at face value so long as it comes from the mouth of someone that they perceive as successful such as a rich business man or, better yet, a politician acting as the mouth piece for the rich, many people will vote against their own interest because they think that if they fall in line perhaps one day they'll be able to enter the elite. Never mind that these beliefs are in no way based in reality.

...the kicker is that, regardless of what they say, most politicians are also connected with wall st., so it's lose-lose.

truthteller- It's because public unions are inextricably linked to politicians....It's the fox guarding the henhouse so the pay and benefits did nothing but go up up up.

A quick comment - This is one of the best and most thoughtful gazette discussions I've ever read. Nice job of getting your points across mteg, thekai, and jv93.

I never understood why I has to pay such high taxes so public employees could get top notch wages and benefits?? I should mention I have a degree and many years in my field of choice also decades of experience. The unions have thrown things so out of whack by getting their members the best of everything that it has driven most non union jobs down the pay scale. Yes I blame unions for this problem. Go ahead union fanatics tell how I don't REALLY understand anything.....

People talking about how easy it is to be poor, how nice to make minimum wage. That is some authentic frontier gibberish, peeps. Let's leave the adults alone for a minute, what about poor children? OK to just let them suffer because mom and dad didn't get a good job? Anybody want to tell me how easy it is to grow up happy and healthy when you can't get proper medical care, healthy food or air to breathe and no one can take the time to raise you because they're at work all day? Bad things happen to poor kids, we all know this is a fact. Let's help them as much as we can and act like we understand what Jesus was talking about.

Yes, I still work. And I work very hard.

truthteller- One question: Do you work still and if so, why?

truthteller- Exactly>>>> NONE of the politicians want people to actually WORK because they tax work to death. Tax more of something, get less.....99% of politicians want a country made up of broken families and billionaires because that's what keeps them in business.
Y'ALL "vote", now, 'ya hear.......LOLOL!!!

I was making 30k self employed. I paid about a $10,000 a year in taxes. My health care was $300 a month with a $5,000 deductible. No vision or dental and I wear glasses and have dental problems. I got no aid what so ever being my income was to high for a single person. Then I get married to my lovely wife with three kids and no income. Now I get more back in taxes than I pay in, we all get free badger care(never had a medical plan that covered so much), food stamps, Wic, heat assistance, free school lunches and milk and probably a few other things I can't think of right now. I am living the best I ever have. My point here is that the hard working single person is getting a raw deal. We need some tax breaks for the lower level self employed and the lower level single people too.

Does anyone know what happens if you raise minimum wage constantly? Prices go up constantly. Do you know who that hurts? Small business. Wal-Mart and Target and big corporations can absorb higher labor costs while they pass the cost on to consumers. Small businesses don't have that option. You'll be helping the very people you profess to hate. I'm guessing the author of this column and the bill co-sponsors hadn't thought of this. That's typical of government - unintended consequences.

no prob

jv93,
I have opened the link you provided and will peruse it in the morning. Thank you for the information. For now, I am going to bed.

No. A currency based system or any free market is not zero sum because what they eventually end up producing will be greater. Our economy or any free market economy never has been and never will be zero sum.

I found a decent explanation and a link. If I find a better one I'll get it up on here. I'm not trying to poach their work but it is easier to post it this way than explain this effect and how I see it in my business every day.

http://mises.org/daily/4635

And nobody said I or any factory owner deserves anymore than I have risked, worked for, or made successful. But if I have made that factory, that new software product, or that great medication, it is the fruits of my labor and not yours therefore I do deserve the reward. Someday kai you will have suffered, worked, struggled, and ground yourself into the ground to land that account, make that sale, or make that new innovative medication. Your boss will plunk down your bonus, commission, or profit of $250,000 and you deserve that. Pay off your parents house in one shot and then go have a beer. You risked, sacrificed, and made it happen. The occupier did not. He slept in a tent and smoked weed while you ground yourself through the night to make that big check happen. So in the end yes, you deserve it more than he does. And maybe if he wakes up in his tent someday and gets it you'll take that money, invest it in starting your own company and hire him right out of college if he has the right skills. And so on.

jv93,
I did not at any point start to fib. I never got angry, I just don't feed trolls. I am sorry if you thought I was fibbing, that was not my intent.

I understand that the concept of a zero sum economy is difficult to understand, and that it can even impede progress. I whole-heartedly agree that a zero sum economy has never worked for very strong reasons. However, a currency based economy must be zero sum.

The problem is that money is a symbol that attempts to achieve universal value. For instance, as someone who deals with electronics a lot, I actually value gold highly. However, to a person who constructs heavy equipment, gold is usually quite worthless. When you attach a dollar amount to materials, though, it allows electrical engineers and mechanical engineers to exchange resources at a much greater degree of ease.

That money is still a symbol, though. As long as we are using a symbol, if we assume it does it's job proficiently, we have a zero sum situation. It is true that the mechanical engineer might rip me off, or I might rip off the mechanical engineer. However, that is not the goal.

I understand that in primitive form, economy will not be zero sum. That is only because people value different items at different rates. A dollar will not buy more for one person that it does for another, though.

Further, I don't think you can force anyone to be happy with what you tell the person they should be happy with. As you illustrate, that is not freedom. Rather, you must make it a goal to teach a person to have responsibility. There is no honor is saying your life is worth more than someone else's. There is no reason a factory owner should proclaim that he or she deserves more than his or her workers.

A person who dreams up a factory to produce a wonderful object, on an island by her self, is just a person with a dream. That is precisely what gives unions/workers power.

yada
I made NO comment regarding minimum wage.

yada
I made NO comment regarding minimum wage.

Don't be angry kai. I just pay attention that's all. And when you started to fib I called you out. Anyhow, what's unfortunate is that you view the economy as a zero sum game which it is not. You believe that to make money one must take from another as with stealing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Individual human beings engaged in transactions freely decide to trade their labor at a negotiated price and in turn use that money to negotiate for goods and services. In this system they have complete freedom. So much freedom that at some point they are able to make their money work for them. Society as you would like it has never occurred. It violates human nature and never will work. It has been tried numerous times and always fails. I am responsible for my and my families lives and that is all. I am not forced to be my brother's keeper through forced charity, which is an oxymoron. I may choose to help, which I do, but I do so through free will and choice. Let me guess the thrust of your approach. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Right? I don't know if you know but your argument against Mitt and his millions is the labor theory of value. We force factory owners to run factories, build wonders, and do amazing things, but they should only receive what politicians or some central board says they should receive to live on. This is not freedom. Human progress has never happened that way. On the other hand, what Mitt is doing in your example is making his money work FOR him. This is the opportunity portion of what I was talking about before. He or his family before him have made good decisions, sacrificed vacations, taken huge risks, and what you see is him reaping the rewards. It could be you someday. That depends on your choices. I'll take opportunity any day over an assured subsistence. Why not take my square of government bread and hobble back to my government apartment? Because human beings have the capacity to dream of something better. Something they can achieve that government can never provide. Your form of society brushes that aside and I will never support a society that does so.

jv93,
My world view is most likely a stark contrast to your own. To get down to the nuts and bolts of it, I don't think it is right for anyone, on welfare or very rich, to take more from a system than what they contribute. Unfortunately, because logic does not actually come very naturally to humans, ideas can appear to have a great impact, while actually contributing very little in terms of energy. A good example is electronic advancements.

Money is an arbitrary symbol, in the end. If we had an apocalyptic event today, and society fell apart, the person who has hundreds of thousands of dollars in a pillow case is a loser. The person who has large quantities of gold is a loser. The person who has a great amount of food with a long shelf life, is very rich.

With that in mind, what value does money really have? Mitt Romney can invest one million dollars and get in return two million dollars. Because of how our system is set up, he can take his net gain and purchase a large quantity of food. But what -work- did he do for that food? He did nothing. It is just a gamble. Further, that gamble is a VIP gamble. If you only have one dollar to make that same investment, you only get two dollars back. You need a lot of money before you can make a lot of money. The odds are stacked against anyone who is not privileged. That is the problem.

I don't want to make money for work I didn't do. I don't want to be the first person to invent the wheel, and then tell people they owe me. I don't want to get rich like that. At this point in my life, if society worked the way it would in my world view (and I'm not suggesting that it should, I know I'm not perfect), then I would be asking for a lot. I am trying to learn. However, in return, I want to give back to society after I receive my education. I do not desire to become a burden on the rest of society for my own self interests.

It is like mteg said. Give a kid a new iPod every other week because she keeps breaking it, and she won't learn to appreciate it. Give the kid the opportunity to purchase the iPod with her own work, and she will treat it with more respect. Rich people who get rich off the stock market don't earn that money. They just "get" the money. When you earn your worth, you feel fulfilled. That is my goal.

If you troll like you did last time, jv93, then our discussion ends here.

"How is that fair? A person can't do that without starting with a large amount of money in the first place." Fair? Fair? According to whom? You? Obama? Politicians? The democratic party? Who are you to determine what is fair? The second part of what you said merely shows your youthful inexperience or maybe you simply are reading the wrong authors or have the wrong teachers. Many, many, many people have created huge wealth from nothing. You are too young to be a cynic kai. You should believe in yourself more. Believe in America more. Much more is possible and even achievable than you think. Go get this book. http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-D... It should be required reading for all young people before they graduate HS or college. It will really open your eyes to what opportunity is really available in the US. A very different picture than you are used to reading about or what your professors will present because let's face it, they most likely have been at a university for their entire careers. They're not bad people but just do not have experience in business.

Obama and Romney are equally bad, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.
There is zero hope for the working class with either one.

Where's donnaw on this one? She hates the idea of a living wage.

well said thekai. well said.

thekai- Thank you.

mteg,
I didn't take offense to you calling someone else a name. I merely think that it reflects poorly on your own character. The only person it hurts is yourself.

You are blaming Obama for a culture that has developed since the 1950s. I'm not sure how you are connecting your dots when you do that, but I certainly disagree with your conclusion. Just because a person favors social welfare programs does not mean they facilitate laziness. I would argue that Mitt Romney's and Paul Ryan's policies facilitate laziness far more than Obama's policies.

I think it is interesting how quickly you are to pin labels on ideas. The idea of socialism exists in many prominent countries in today's world. For example, Germany is a social Democracy, yet they are not all poor. By your logic, this is an absurdity. I'm not saying all out socialism is a good thing, rather, I am pointing out the error in your prejudice and logic.

One problem is that you think that anyone who is wealthy is a hard worker. In many cases, this isn't true. One example is Mitt Romney's income for 2011. He didn't work at all, but he managed to "earn" a large amount of money. How is that fair? A person can't do that without starting with a large amount of money in the first place.

Another problem is that, I am assuming, you think that someone can get extremely rich if they just work really hard. While it is true that our social structure can allow this to happen in today's world, in a purely practical sense, that doesn't make sense. There is a limit to how much a person can gain, and it is determined by how much they contribute.

Your analysis of voting in extreme right conservatives is also false. 50 years ago we were already on the downward slope that brought us to where we are today. 60 years ago only one adult in the house worked, and that was the man of the house. The wives would stay at home all day and take care of children, household chores, cook dinner, etc.. It was also a time when the top income earners in our country were taxed far more than they are today.

By the way, in 2007, our minimum wage, adjusted with inflation, was LOWER than the minimum wage during The Great Depression.

I think the biggest problem you have, along with most of the TEA Party, and some Republicans, is that you just -hate- the President. You -hate- Democrats, and you -hate- anyone who has different views than your own. You find no value in my principles. You find no value in my solutions to a problem. You think that your way is the only right way. The truth is, we can all contribute positively, if we just work together. Until you can overcome your prejudice, though, you will largely be an obstacle to success.

Sorry you took offense to it...as several people had posted between and my comment was geared towards you. People in this country are lazy...and I don't blame them entirely...I blame people like Obamma who have embedded this idea of setteling, not wanting to get ahead, be lazy, and collect bennefits. Guess what Socialism is great at keeping everyone poor...Not my lifestyle choice. What I don't get is this menatlity of making people suffer more. Now if we overtaxed the poor, to give middle class a break---that would be punishing or causing them to suffer (kinda like what the libs want anyone who works hard to do). Again, people see aid as an entitlement. What if every hardworking American got together...and voted extreme conservative or Tea Party agenda's-eliminating much of the aid given to individuals, cutting welfare, cutting housing assitance, etc... essentially forcing people to get out and get a job...forcing people to work 2 jobs....forcing people to do what it takes to support a family. 50 years ago, thats what people did...a man would work 1-2-sometimes 3 jobs in support of his family...and people got by. Now we have a president that is advocating welfare, unemployement, etc... with no reason to look for work, no stipulations, no incentive to get a job. I don't want people to suffer...I want people to get their a**es of the couch and go out and work...pay taxes...and support their familys so I don't have to. I started out making min wage, and it wasn't $7 an hour. Simple logic...people don't respect something that they didnt work for...so why continue to give it to them. Like buying a kid a new Ipod every other week when they keep breaking it. Help the child buy one with their own money and see how good they take care of it.

“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”

mteg,
Your argument loses all of its weight when you resort to name calling. It highlights your prejudice and shows your lack of character and judgement. At the very least, it leads someone to believe that you lack the maturity to continue this discussion, even if that is not the case.

I am going to assume you are just used to the usual childish back and forth on this website. I don't think it is right to fault someone for something that seems right in the given environment. (For example, many Germans eventually came to realize the huge mistake they made in supporting NAZIs.)

I don't know how long ago you went to school. I do know that the cost of higher education has been rising for a great number of years now, and it costs me much more to go to college today than what it cost someone in the decades before the present. (Pick any decade, it doesn't matter, the price of higher education has gone up, up, up.)

I think you have hit one important nail on the head. The culture in the United States has become largely a culture of entitlement. This ranges from the super rich all the way down to the very poor. People feel that they are owed something. Some poor people feel the government owes them food assistance. Some rich people feel because they started a business, they deserve a large share of the income of that business. The problem is that many do not view the system as one with consequences for every action. Give me, give me, give me, they say.

To pin that solely on the poor, is arrogant and inaccurate. That is a cultural problem. It is one that definitely needs to be fixed, or things will only get worse. You don't fix it by making poor people suffer more. You don't fix it by just giving money away, either. I repeat, it's a cultural problem. People need to be informed of the concept of finite resources, teamwork, charity, and a good work ethic.

The Kai
I went to school for year took a year off and worked in a factory...saw how that lifestyle was and went back to school in mornings and worked 2nd shift...6 days a week. Granted that was ages ago, but can be done. I didnt have gi bill, could get finacial aid, or grants, and refused to take a student loan...students would be a minority in what I described as there are other factors such as time to work, class load, etc... For someone not going to school..there really is no excuse though. When you can put 2 individuals or familys side by side...one that scrapes by with no aid but makes more money...vs the other than rely's on nothing but aid and minimum wage...and they have the same lifestyle (or in some cases the ones on aid have a better one) there's a big problem....and this is what Obumnuts is pushing for more of. I'm not taling about comparing a workng couple making combined income of $60k+ a year. I'm referring to someone supporting a family on a $16-$17 an hour wage that will struggle vs. someone just collecting aid and working a menial min wage job. The goal people should strive is to work the min wage job and either rise through the ranks...or branch out into something that pays more, not to give up and rely on everyone else to pick up the slack. Aid is for helping you get on your feet, helping give you a push out the door...not a lifestyle that so many seem to be accustomed to.

If that's the renters your getting your property must be very high class.

I love how one person comes from under a rock to say -- i dont accept all those benefits.. well good for you because I see the many that do. I rent property and cannot tell you how many claim those benefits as part of their income to qualify for a rental. WIC, diasability, welfare, section 8. You name it. Most use those min wage jobs as a starting point and get raises or promotions, or new opportunities. The creame rises and the spoiled milk sinks.

Did I hear another political comment coming from WISLADY pertaining to minimum wage? lol
Napoleon Bonaparte once said -->"In politics stupidity is not a handicap."

go_to_school,
Care to elaborate on your comment?

mteg,
I like your tactic. It is good to compare the real value of situations, instead of just parts.

However, the idea that anyone earning minimum wage is reaping all of those benefits is false. First of all, most people who are paid minimum wage are kept under 40 hours per week. That means, in the -best- case scenario, they are taking home 7.25*40*52 = $15,080 - taxes in a year. Some people, myself included, are really only seeing a fraction of that.

I work, on average 15 hours a week (I am a full-time student, working 40 hours a week is not even close to ideal) and I am stuck at minimum wage. The job I have offers a 5 cent raise after 90 days, and a 5 cent raise every year thereafter. So, do the math. 7.25*15*52 = $5,655. That is before taxes. To complicate things, I am a veteran, and I enjoy the benefits of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. That pays for 36 months of education, a $1000/year book stipend, and roughly $950/mo (assuming a 30 day month) I am actively enrolled as a full time student. That increases my income by, roughly, $8,000.00 per year. That is still under $15,000.00 total. Adding to the mess, summer months (when I'm not enrolled in classes) my income drops dramatically. It isn't very easy to find a summer job (I just went this whole past summer working about 15 hours a week at $7.25/hr). However, when I applied for food assistance because I was having troubles simply paying my bills, I was told that I only qualified for about $18/mo because of how they calculate income. They looked at my past income, which included about $950/mo from the GI Bill, and said that I made too much money.

If we use broad strokes to analyze the data, we have to remember we are using broad strokes. In fact, the situation you described seemed to me an ideal situation, with maximum hours and benefits. The reality is, it rarely ever works that way.

I struggle enough balancing work and school with the GI Bill already paying for my school and housing. You tell me, how is someone expected to pull off such a balancing act without the GI Bill? Working more hours means less time to focus on school. Education should never take the back seat, though.

In case you were wondering, I turned down the food assistance. I wasn't sure I even wanted to do that in the first place. It is very difficult to ask for that kind of help, and many people making minimum wage do not. The idea is that people won't depend on those programs, isn't it? So why assume that everyone making minimum wage -should-?

Here's another perspective...working poor start with $15,000 but will qualify for foodstamps, state health care, WIC, possibly even welfare. They also fall into the category of tax exempt...and add kids, the state and fedaral government pay them back thru credits. Equate food stamps $200-700 month or $1200-$8400 and health ins is at least worth $600 a month (thats what I pay out of biweekly paychecks)so $7200-$10000 (I also get sacked with $30-$50 copays, etc so for something like badgercare coverage could be worth $10k for a similar private coverage plan). SO in reality the working poor are on par with someone making anywhere between $23,400-$33,4000 not including tax credits, welfare, WIC, housing assistance, etc... In realtiy it's the lower middle class that will suffer more as they make enough to disqualify them from state and federal aid...for things like housing, food, medical ins, etc...

I'm more and more amazed at "Christians" turning their backs on the needy.

how about every person in the goverment take a pay cut like most people have to keep their jobs.

SEIU is paying $11.00 per hour for protesters.