The Top 40.................

mantisman51

Active Member
Ok, I read your post-against a personal rule of mine. You, sir, are a genius. Let me help you:
"Secondly, I am not concerned if only the wealthy pay taxes. That was the way income taxes were sold to the country when the Constitutional amendment allowing payroll taxes was passed. The big selling point was 'only the rich will have to pay'."
"But, frankly, the fact that only the wealthy may eventually pay Federal income taxes; I think that's a step in the right direction."
There ya go, genius.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
So, wrong again. It must really stink to be soooooo wrong, soooooo much of the time. So, while I stick by calling those who live in perpetual government subsidized poverty "leeches", I have never castigated those who pay little or no income tax.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489737
So, wrong again. It must really stink to be soooooo wrong, soooooo much of the time. So, while I stick by calling those who live in perpetual government subsidized poverty "leeches", I have never castigated those who pay little or no income tax.
Those who you stereotype as leeches, are less than 1% of the population, if that. You're just $500 short of fitting the same category. Never castigated those who pay little or no taxes?

I can't count the number of times I've seen you rail the conspiracy that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes. You're such a hypocrite it's not even worthwhile arguing with you.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
No, you haven't. I have never said there was a problem with 1/2 the people not paying Federal taxes. That is the current Republican rallying cry and where I diverge from some of the other conservatives here. But, the fact that you would compare someone who hasn't received government money with those who do shows you are irrational. This is why I ignore you most of the time. When shown to be the tool you are, you start making stuff up. Dang, there's another 10 minutes I wasted on someone who can't tell the truth or even bring facts to the table.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/20#post_3489681
A doctor isn't going to go run to the unemployment line because he can only make 120% in profits as opposed to 200%. I went to a Neurologist a few months back for numbness in my legs and arms. The guy spent a total of 15 minutes running little wheels up and down my arms and legs, tapping sharps pins on my feet and hands, and making me do some other simplistic motion tests. His "professional opinion" couldn't come up with anything conclusive, and he handed me a prescription for some drug that was supposed to help with my nervous system, and said if the symptoms didn't diminish, he could set me up with a CAT Scan or MRI to look further. When I got my statement from my insurance provider, his normal rate was $250 for that office visit. This guy's been in practice for more than 10 years. I think all the loans he took out to obtain his specialty degree are paid off. If I hadn't had insurance, he'd effectively would've made $1000/hr for seeing me. Yea, I'll see him in the bread lines on TV..
So you don't think that these providers won't be claiming they're going to have to shut down their buinesses if they're capped at how much they can charge for a policy? You don't think they won't have a cap as to how many people they'll insure before it affects their bottom line? You're talking about millions of Baby Boomers coming into the Medicare roles over the next 10 - 15 years. If these providers are capped, some of the one's at the tail end won't have anyone available to go to. Then what? Oh that's right, the plan also states if you want better coverage than what your allottment will pay, that money comes out of YOUR pocket. So they'll be stuck with the premium plans, an have to spend half their retirement income paying the premiums.
What percentage of the population is on Medicare or Medicaid, perhaps 20%? If they refuse those patients it just means the doctors can have less support staff and spend an extra day on the golf course rather than treating people at a loss. For someone who claims to be a business owner you repeatedly come up with some pretty weird ideas about how a business is ran.
Someone 55 years old today is currently looking at 2 scenarios. 1) We do nothing and when they reach 67 which is the medicare age it will be 2024, the year the medicare fund goes broke so they get nothing AND those already in the system also lose their coverage. OR, 2) they get a voucher that will cover at least a large part of a premium for private insurance and those currently 55 and older keep their current coverage. So far the Romney/Ryan plan in 100% better than what we have today. Until someone comes up with something better I'd suggest people quit attacking this plan, It makes them look stupid.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489746
No, you haven't. I have never said there was a problem with 1/2 the people not paying Federal taxes. That is the current Republican rallying cry and where I diverge from some of the other conservatives here. But, the fact that you would compare someone who hasn't received government money with those who do shows you are irrational. This is why I ignore you most of the time. When shown to be the tool you are, you start making stuff up. Dang, there's another 10 minutes I wasted on someone who can't tell the truth or even bring facts to the table.
Only the "rich" paying taxes would be fine.
If we eliminate programs not in place when the income tax was originally conceive including;
Refundable tax credits
Welfare
Section 8 housing
Food Stamps
Heating subsidies
Cell phone giveaways
Electric subsidies
School lunches
CHIPs
Telephone Subsidies
WIC
And about 10 thousand more programs.
Thing is out of those who fill out a tax return last year 49.5% didn't owe federal taxes. BUT very few of them owed 0 taxes. Because of refundable tax credits most of those will actually be paid by the government in some form, Earned income credit, Child credits etc. That is over and above any other assistance they receive. Thats what slays me about the Democrats "Fair share" propaganda. The 5% who pay 60% of the taxes while earning like 30% of the income aren't paying enough LOL!
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489749
What percentage of the population is on Medicare or Medicaid, perhaps 20%? If they refuse those patients it just means the doctors can have less support staff and spend an extra day on the golf course rather than treating people at a loss. For someone who claims to be a business owner you repeatedly come up with some pretty weird ideas about how a business is ran.
Someone 55 years old today is currently looking at 2 scenarios. 1) We do nothing and when they reach 67 which is the medicare age it will be 2024, the year the medicare fund goes broke so they get nothing AND those already in the system also lose their coverage. OR, 2) they get a voucher that will cover at least a large part of a premium for private insurance and those currently 55 and older keep their current coverage. So far the Romney/Ryan plan in 100% better than what we have today. Until someone comes up with something better I'd suggest people quit attacking this plan, It makes them look stupid.
The alternatie is Obamacare. With that in place, I don't have to worry about Medicare.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489746
No, you haven't. I have never said there was a problem with 1/2 the people not paying Federal taxes. That is the current Republican rallying cry and where I diverge from some of the other conservatives here. But, the fact that you would compare someone who hasn't received government money with those who do shows you are irrational. This is why I ignore you most of the time. When shown to be the tool you are, you start making stuff up. Dang, there's another 10 minutes I wasted on someone who can't tell the truth or even bring facts to the table.
The problem with your logic is you don't know why they are taking assistance in the first place. Your have this stereotype in your mind that there are millions of people out there with 3, 4, 6 kids, and all they do is lay around all day collecting Welfare checks. There are abusers in the system, but they are few and far between. You have honest people out there that want to work, but can't find anything at all. You have people that experienced a catastrophic event (medical issue, disability, etc.) that makes it impossible to work again. So I suppose you think these people should just disappear and die so they don't leech off those huge taxes you paideach year. Oh wait, your taxes wouldn't pay a months worth of support for most Welfare recipients. What's comical is I paid more taxes last year than you made in wages, and I'm not sitting here complaining about someone getting Welfare assistance on MY taxes. Why? Because I understand why most of those people use that program. I know people who've had to resort to using Welfare, and they're pretty embarrassed to admit it. Unlike you, I don't belittle them because they fell on hard times, for whatever reason it was.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
I agree. Too many government hand-outs. Which is why I mentioned them in the first place. I also used the phrase perpetual, government-subsidized poverty. It is the most diabolical things the democrats have done: keep people poor and needy and you have an automatic voting bloc to keep the money flowing.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489763
I agree. Too many government hand-outs. Which is why I mentioned them in the first place. I also used the phrase perpetual, government-subsidized poverty. It is the most diabolical things the democrats have done: keep people poor and needy and you have an automatic voting bloc to keep the money flowing.
Brother. Right out of the Limbaugh blog site. How exactly have the Democrats kept the "people poor and needy"? Bush implemented his little tax cuts with the philosophy that if the rich could keep more of their money, they'd spend it on business improvements and job creations. That was implemented in what, 2002? Ten years later, where's all the jobs the wealthy were supposed to create? Nope. Instead, they kept their money and spent it on luxury cars, vacations, and dumped it into personal accounts so that it could make even more money for them to spend on themselves.
Name all these "government handouts" you say there are. You have Welfare and Food Stamps. What else is there?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489759
With 0bama care in place the Medicare trust fund bankrupts in the year 2024. Look it up
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/ryans-muddy-medicare-claims/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/going-out-of-business/
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/
Ryan also repeats the misleading claim that “Medicare will go bankrupt in 2021 unless we do something to save it.” As we’ve written, this claim pertains to one part of Medicare — Part A — which is expected to be depleted in 2020, according to the CBO, or 2029, according to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. But that doesn’t mean Medicare is going out of business. The trustees have been predicting a Part A depletion “almost from its inception,” says the Congressional Research Service. Yet politicians have found ways to extend it.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/15/fact-check-obamas-attack-ad-on-romney-ryan-medicare-overhaul/
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/medicare/index.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/careact.pdf
 
Oh so very much to say here.
First of all, this back and forth arguing in the big picture is all semantics. Whether you think Medicare/Medicaid, insurance, vouchers, Obamacare etc, is the devil; you have to take a step back and look at how things really work in this country.
Within the broad spectrum of "healthcare", there are a very limited, but very powerful group of people who make billions and billions of dollars from the current system. Most of those people are in the insurance game, while a few are in medicine and health care products. If you know anything about America in the 21st century, you know that political policy is shaped by those who back handed-ly pay for campaigns, elections, offices, trips, and "back pocket money" to those in the federal government. It's absolutely no surprise that most members of congress, governors, presidential contenders, and their ilk are all wealthy to begin with. In most instances, they became moderately wealthy with whatever business or family money they had, and then they got into the political game. After that, usually on the local level first, they start doing "favors" in exchange for monetary gains. Even in my little town, the mayor made it very tax favorable for a company to come into our city limits, and after he retired, he now holds a well paid seat on their board.
The bigger the office, the bigger the "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours" gets, and before you know it, the politicians are all the hands of the small group of very powerful, and very wealthy individuals. I don't want to sound like the occupy people, because I don't believe sitting on your butt in a camp to "protest" on behalf of the 99% is really going to accomplish anything. But in theory, those folks have a very good point.
The 1% of this country really do make all the decisions one way or another through financial corruption of public officials. It's a fact.
The problem therein lies with the fact that it really makes no difference whether you vote for Romney, or Obama. Beyond those two who are the "Faces" of their respective parties, you have the billions (or trillions) of dollars of political influence on both sides of the aisle backing them.
If there is one thing really wealthy people do, regardless of their political affiliation, is make sure they get every little break they can to keep as much of their money as possible. You can take that to the bank. As much as some of these liberal multi millionaires act like they care about the "greater good", they are just as quick as their republican counterparts to make sure their money is shielded and protected from taxes.
The only way things would ever change to the point where your average middle class American would actually be helped, is if there was an influx of honest, selfless, caring politicians from the top down; who would be willing to stand up against the status quo. Fact of the matter is, that's not ever going to happen, because the wealth in this country has become entirely too one sided. As much as I hate to admit this, I just see the top 1% and the other 99% distancing further and further apart until something or someone is the straw that breaks the camels back. We're not there yet, and it may be another 50 years.
All I can tell you, is that the way the current system is set up monetarily, tax structure, social programs and the like... it's unsustainable, and something at some point is going to light the match that is going to start the fire. I'm not saying it's going to be a civil war and states ceding, but it's going to be something, and whatever that something is, won't be good. That's for sure.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489800
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/ryans-muddy-medicare-claims/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/going-out-of-business/
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/
Ryan also repeats the misleading claim that “Medicare will go bankrupt in 2021 unless we do something to save it.” As we’ve written, this claim pertains to one part of Medicare — Part A — which is expected to be depleted in 2020, according to the CBO, or 2029, according to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. But that doesn’t mean Medicare is going out of business. The trustees have been predicting a Part A depletion “almost from its inception,” says the Congressional Research Service. Yet politicians have found ways to extend it.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/15/fact-check-obamas-attack-ad-on-romney-ryan-medicare-overhaul/
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/medicare/index.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/careact.pdf
Straight from the Social Security administration No spin, no smoke and mirrors just facts.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
"The HI Trust Fund also does not meet the short-range test of financial adequacy; its trust fund ratio was 90 percent at the beginning of 2012 based on the year’s anticipated expenditures, and the projected ratio does not rise to 100 percent within five years. Projected HI Trust Fund assets are fully depleted in 2024."
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489833
Straight from the Social Security administration No spin, no smoke and mirrors just facts.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
"The HI Trust Fund also does not meet the short-range test of financial adequacy; its trust fund ratio was 90 percent at the beginning of 2012 based on the year’s anticipated expenditures, and the projected ratio does not rise to 100 percent within five years. Projected HI Trust Fund assets are fully depleted in 2024."

Read the articles I posted.. That depletion is for Medicare Part A, not the entire plan.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489828
Oh so very much to say here.
First of all, this back and forth arguing in the big picture is all semantics. Whether you think Medicare/Medicaid, insurance, vouchers, Obamacare etc, is the devil; you have to take a step back and look at how things really work in this country.
Within the broad spectrum of "healthcare", there are a very limited, but very powerful group of people who make billions and billions of dollars from the current system. Most of those people are in the insurance game, while a few are in medicine and health care products. If you know anything about America in the 21st century, you know that political policy is shaped by those who back handed-ly pay for campaigns, elections, offices, trips, and "back pocket money" to those in the federal government. It's absolutely no surprise that most members of congress, governors, presidential contenders, and their ilk are all wealthy to begin with. In most instances, they became moderately wealthy with whatever business or family money they had, and then they got into the political game. After that, usually on the local level first, they start doing "favors" in exchange for monetary gains. Even in my little town, the mayor made it very tax favorable for a company to come into our city limits, and after he retired, he now holds a well paid seat on their board.
The bigger the office, the bigger the "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours" gets, and before you know it, the politicians are all the hands of the small group of very powerful, and very wealthy individuals. I don't want to sound like the occupy people, because I don't believe sitting on your butt in a camp to "protest" on behalf of the 99% is really going to accomplish anything. But in theory, those folks have a very good point.
The 1% of this country really do make all the decisions one way or another through financial corruption of public officials. It's a fact.
The problem therein lies with the fact that it really makes no difference whether you vote for Romney, or Obama. Beyond those two who are the "Faces" of their respective parties, you have the billions (or trillions) of dollars of political influence on both sides of the aisle backing them.
If there is one thing really wealthy people do, regardless of their political affiliation, is make sure they get every little break they can to keep as much of their money as possible. You can take that to the bank. As much as some of these liberal multi millionaires act like they care about the "greater good", they are just as quick as their republican counterparts to make sure their money is shielded and protected from taxes.
The only way things would ever change to the point where your average middle class American would actually be helped, is if there was an influx of honest, selfless, caring politicians from the top down; who would be willing to stand up against the status quo. Fact of the matter is, that's not ever going to happen, because the wealth in this country has become entirely too one sided. As much as I hate to admit this, I just see the top 1% and the other 99% distancing further and further apart until something or someone is the straw that breaks the camels back. We're not there yet, and it may be another 50 years.
All I can tell you, is that the way the current system is set up monetarily, tax structure, social programs and the like... it's unsustainable, and something at some point is going to light the match that is going to start the fire. I'm not saying it's going to be a civil war and states ceding, but it's going to be something, and whatever that something is, won't be good. That's for sure.
The "common man" can no longer aspire to become some elected official. Look at how much has been spent by Obama and Romney for their aspiration to get nominated for POTUS. It's currently into the BILLIONS of dollars. People rail about wasteful government spending, yet they overlook how political candidates just throw money out the window just to get hold of that Golden Key known as the national position in the House and Senate. I think our last mayoral race, the candidates spent close to a million. Perry blew double-digit millions getting re-elected for Governor. Then he cuts State Medicare benefits and cuts our educational system to the bone. If I wanted to run for my local City Council, I'd need at least $100K to even have a chance to make it on the ballot. If I was fortunate to get elected, our Councilmen get paid something like $20 a session, so it's not your typical political position where you reap wads of cash from your constiuents. So you have to be either retired, self-employed, or have a very accomadating employer that would allow you to take as much time as you'd need to hold that office. So you can imagine who get elected to those positions.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489828
Oh so very much to say here.
First of all, this back and forth arguing in the big picture is all semantics. Whether you think Medicare/Medicaid, insurance, vouchers, Obamacare etc, is the devil; you have to take a step back and look at how things really work in this country.
Within the broad spectrum of "healthcare", there are a very limited, but very powerful group of people who make billions and billions of dollars from the current system. Most of those people are in the insurance game, while a few are in medicine and health care products. If you know anything about America in the 21st century, you know that political policy is shaped by those who back handed-ly pay for campaigns, elections, offices, trips, and "back pocket money" to those in the federal government. It's absolutely no surprise that most members of congress, governors, presidential contenders, and their ilk are all wealthy to begin with. In most instances, they became moderately wealthy with whatever business or family money they had, and then they got into the political game. After that, usually on the local level first, they start doing "favors" in exchange for monetary gains. Even in my little town, the mayor made it very tax favorable for a company to come into our city limits, and after he retired, he now holds a well paid seat on their board.
The bigger the office, the bigger the "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours" gets, and before you know it, the politicians are all the hands of the small group of very powerful, and very wealthy individuals. I don't want to sound like the occupy people, because I don't believe sitting on your butt in a camp to "protest" on behalf of the 99% is really going to accomplish anything. But in theory, those folks have a very good point.
The 1% of this country really do make all the decisions one way or another through financial corruption of public officials. It's a fact.
The problem therein lies with the fact that it really makes no difference whether you vote for Romney, or Obama. Beyond those two who are the "Faces" of their respective parties, you have the billions (or trillions) of dollars of political influence on both sides of the aisle backing them.
If there is one thing really wealthy people do, regardless of their political affiliation, is make sure they get every little break they can to keep as much of their money as possible. You can take that to the bank. As much as some of these liberal multi millionaires act like they care about the "greater good", they are just as quick as their republican counterparts to make sure their money is shielded and protected from taxes.
The only way things would ever change to the point where your average middle class American would actually be helped, is if there was an influx of honest, selfless, caring politicians from the top down; who would be willing to stand up against the status quo. Fact of the matter is, that's not ever going to happen, because the wealth in this country has become entirely too one sided. As much as I hate to admit this, I just see the top 1% and the other 99% distancing further and further apart until something or someone is the straw that breaks the camels back. We're not there yet, and it may be another 50 years.
All I can tell you, is that the way the current system is set up monetarily, tax structure, social programs and the like... it's unsustainable, and something at some point is going to light the match that is going to start the fire. I'm not saying it's going to be a civil war and states ceding, but it's going to be something, and whatever that something is, won't be good. That's for sure.
If things don't change I will see a civil war in my lifetime. Sad but true.
People get too worked up about the filthy rich 1%. What is a dollar worth. I grew up in the 60's. Candy bars were a nickle, Gas was 29 cents a gallon unless there was a gas war. I remember taking a bunch of gas cans to the station with my mom because gas was 19 cents a gallon. My parents bought their first house in Orange country California in 1962 for 9,999.00. The house next door to it (similar model) sold for 521K in 2007.
Bill Clinton made a profound statement when he said envy isn't the American way but sadly I think more and more he is wrong. The 1% isn't the problem. It the nearly 50% who pay no taxes which is a two fold problem. They are a drain on the system which is one part but the other is why? In a lot of cases the government is overly generous with handouts but a lot of those people don't earn enough to make ends meet.
It all comes back to one single problem. That giant sucking sound Ross Perot warned about 20 years ago. We don't build anything in this country anymore. When my parents got divorced my mom went to work for a company that made aircraft fasteners. The company ran 3 shifts and working Saturday was pretty common and this was in the Dark Days of Jimmy Carter in the 70's. She worked her way up from minimum wage to making better than 22 an hour when she retired in 95, No college education or special training. Just hard work. You can't find many opportunities like that any more.
The idea that the rich want to hold down the middle class is absurd. Clemson, you are in business. It doesn't matter if you make 10,000 a year, a month, a week or a day. You need people with money in their pockets to be able to buy cupcakes or you are screwed. The dirty little secret the class warfare folks don't people to understand is they depend on a vibrant middle class to buy their goods and services.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489839
The "common man" can no longer aspire to become some elected official. Look at how much has been spent by Obama and Romney for their aspiration to get nominated for POTUS. It's currently into the BILLIONS of dollars. People rail about wasteful government spending, yet they overlook how political candidates just throw money out the window just to get hold of that Golden Key known as the national position in the House and Senate. I think our last mayoral race, the candidates spent close to a million. Perry blew double-digit millions getting re-elected for Governor. Then he cuts State Medicare benefits and cuts our educational system to the bone. If I wanted to run for my local City Council, I'd need at least $100K to even have a chance to make it on the ballot. If I was fortunate to get elected, our Councilmen get paid something like $20 a session, so it's not your typical political position where you reap wads of cash from your constiuents. So you have to be either retired, self-employed, or have a very accomadating employer that would allow you to take as much time as you'd need to hold that office. So you can imagine who get elected to those positions.
WHAT they spend isn't an issue. The real issue is WHY would they spend that amount to get elected :)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/40#post_3489844
If things don't change I will see a civil war in my lifetime. Sad but true.
People get too worked up about the filthy rich 1%. What is a dollar worth. I grew up in the 60's. Candy bars were a nickle, Gas was 29 cents a gallon unless there was a gas war. I remember taking a bunch of gas cans to the station with my mom because gas was 19 cents a gallon. My parents bought their first house in Orange country California in 1962 for 9,999.00. The house next door to it (similar model) sold for 521K in 2007.
Bill Clinton made a profound statement when he said envy isn't the American way but sadly I think more and more he is wrong. The 1% isn't the problem. It the nearly 50% who pay no taxes which is a two fold problem. They are a drain on the system which is one part but the other is why? In a lot of cases the government is overly generous with handouts but a lot of those people don't earn enough to make ends meet.
It all comes back to one single problem. That giant sucking sound Ross Perot warned about 20 years ago. We don't build anything in this country anymore. When my parents got divorced my mom went to work for a company that made aircraft fasteners. The company ran 3 shifts and working Saturday was pretty common and this was in the Dark Days of Jimmy Carter in the 70's. She worked her way up from minimum wage to making better than 22 an hour when she retired in 95, No college education or special training. Just hard work. You can't find many opportunities like that any more.
The idea that the rich want to hold down the middle class is absurd. Clemson, you are in business. It doesn't matter if you make 10,000 a year, a month, a week or a day. You need people with money in their pockets to be able to buy cupcakes or you are screwed. The dirty little secret the class warfare folks don't people to understand is they depend on a vibrant middle class to buy their goods and services.
You are absolutely right about one thing. And that is that unlike your mother in the 70's, there are no longer jobs for the middle class to hold. Now why that is can be a topic for another thread... but you have to realize that the 1% are typically the folks who own the companies that shipped those jobs out of this country. And why did they ship those jobs overseas? It's really two fold. The first, is that in order to compete in a global economy, you have to be financially competitive with the guys you are competing against. In some, and I stress some situations, there is no choice but to outsource jobs to stay in business.
However, there are a TON of companies that ship their jobs overseas to simply make more money for themselves and their shareholders and could give two hoots about how that affects the middle class in America. If you look at the CEO's, CFO's, and top board members and shareholders of American based Fortune 500 companies... you'll find a bunch of people making tens of millions of dollars a year with no regard to how it affects you and me.
There comes a point where you make so much money, you don't even have the capacity to relate to the average American anymore. Steve Jobs is a great example. He (and now his family) is worth more money than they will ever be able to spend in ten lifetimes. Almost all of Apple's products are made in China. Take some of the hundreds of million dollars from his personal fortune and start building those products here. Does Steve Jobs lose some money? Absolutely. Does it really matter when your net worth goes from 10 billion to 7 billion? I don't have a billion dollars, so I can't understand what its like to be that wealthy.
The thing I don't understand is that when you pass a certain financial threshold where you never have to worry about money for the rest of your life, why do you insist on doing everything you can to make even more? The so called "job creators" of this country want Mitt Romney because he wants to help them protect their fortunes, not actually create jobs.
If these multi-millionaires and billionaires wanted to create jobs, they already have the financial power to do so, they simply choose not to in a lot of cases. And they choose not to, so that they can amass even more money that they will never be able to spend through.
 
Top