# How many jobs do the 1% provide?



## Guest (Nov 22, 2011)

Just wondering.

I couldn't find the answer via Google.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

It probably depends if you are counting American jobs or overseas jobs.

Per dollar there are probably significantly less jobs created by The Creators than jobs created by small businesses.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2011)

I mean American jobs.

I really would like to know, but how to find that info?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Let's see, I have a Butler,Maid,Nanny,Landscaper,Driver,Accountant,Attorney,Captain and Mates,Pilots,Mechanics for Plane upkeep...and I'm not even at work yet.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Most people are not employed by an individual. I work for a small retail store, owned by 2 people. My paycheck has the store's incorporated name on it, not the owner's names. Not sure how that statistic shows up in the census. I doubt you'll find the stat you are looking for.


----------



## MD Steader (Mar 11, 2010)

fishhead said:


> It probably depends if you are counting American jobs or overseas jobs.
> 
> Per dollar there are probably significantly less jobs created by The Creators than jobs created by small businesses.


Well in 2009 the "Creators" was anyone making more than $343,927. THAT includes many, many small businesses. Which are or are not people depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on that thread. 


http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Think it takes a million bucks to make it into the Top 1% of American taxpayers?

*Think again. In 2009, it took just $343,927 to join that elite group, according to newly released statistics from the Internal Revenue Service.*Occupy Wall Street protesters have been railing against the Top 1%, trying to raise anger and awareness of the growing economic gap between the rich and everybody else in America.

But just who are these fortunate folks at the top of the income ladder?

*Well, there were just under 1.4 million households that qualified for entry. They earned nearly 17% of the nation's income and paid roughly 37% of its income tax.*
Collectively, their adjusted gross income was $1.3 trillion. And while $343,927 was the minimum AGI to be included, on average, Top 1-percenters made $960,000.






> Most people are not employed by an individual. I work for a small retail store, owned by 2 people. My paycheck has the store's incorporated name on it, not the owner's names. Not sure how that statistic shows up in the census. I doubt you'll find the stat you are looking for.


^-- Good point which begs the question of the day here for the OWS supporters; If a small business files taxes for $350K is the business BAD and the owners good (because they only made 175K each) OR are the owners BAD because they are in the 1% business? I mean 175k year is slim pickings isnt it?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

7thswan said:


> Let's see, I have a Butler,Maid,Nanny,Landscaper,Driver,Accountant,Attorney,Captain and Mates,Pilots,Mechanics for Plane upkeep...and I'm not even at work yet.


You forgot the "pest control" man.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> You forgot the "pest control" man.


Ya, and the Chef- I wish.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Shucks,I did'nt make it-my little 2 truck/3 employee company only grossed 300k-of which I kept 35k-both of my 1099 drivers made about 60-65k each..what an evile person I am......But I'm selling trucks and contracts to them(great kids-26yr old twins)on Jan 1..so I will no longer be evile...or paying taxes to the beast...


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Ya, and the Chef- I wish.



Dont forget the sexy pool man. :teehee:


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

None without the other 99% to buy products and services.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Let's see, I have a Butler,Maid,Nanny,Landscaper,Driver,Accountant,Attorney,Captain and Mates,Pilots,Mechanics for Plane upkeep...and I'm not even at work yet.


You can only count the ones that are here legally. Plus the ones that are here legally, yet send most of their pay to their home in another country do not count, either.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Very long article, but zoom down to figure 9, That is very telling.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MD Steader said:


> Well in 2009 the "Creators" was anyone making more than $343,927. THAT includes many, many small businesses. Which are or are not people depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on that thread.
> 
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm
> ...



For most folks, it is hard to grasp that a company with two employees, paying taxes on $350,000.00 had to turn over between $35,000,000.00 and $350,000,000., leaving the company with a return on their money at between 1% and 10%. So after you write off millions in overhead, you pay both employees $175,000.00 each. Then you both go through your deductions, home interest, health care, etc. With good planning you should pay taxes on half of that. So, with a business that nets a third of a million, no taxes are paid because the whole profit went to the two owners. Each owner pays taxes on $90,000. Far, far from the top 1%.

To really get into the top 1%, you'll need to be paying taxes on a million. That often requires an income, before deductions, of nearly $2,000,000. If you earn your wage by operating a company and your income is its total profit, expect to have gross sales of $20,000,000.00 to $200,000,000.00. Your business owes no taxes.

Perhaps more important to OWS, did your $350.000 income come from running a fleet of mobile pet grooming trucks or did you bundle some worthless mortgages and sell them as valuable derivatives. Did you invent and market a plastic sheet that has anti-bacterial substance impregnated into its surface or did your Stockbroker frat buddy feed you some insider info about a soon to collapse stock, so you bought put options to sell short?


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Perhaps more important to OWS, did your $350.000 income come from running a fleet of mobile pet grooming trucks or did you bundle some worthless mortgages and sell them as valuable derivatives. Did you invent and market a plastic sheet that has anti-bacterial substance impregnated into its surface or did your Stockbroker frat buddy feed you some insider info about a soon to collapse stock, so you bought put options to sell short?


There ya go.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Perhaps more important to OWS, did your $350.000 income come from running a fleet of mobile pet grooming trucks or did you bundle some worthless mortgages and sell them as valuable derivatives.


Did some insane knee jerk liberal decide that the laws of economics were just not fair, and anybody breathing, whether they had no job, no income, no credit history, and were living in a cardboard box, should have their own home... and then mandate that banks MUST give worthless loans to unworthy borrowers... and the banks forced to do this sold the garbage loans to Freddie/Fannie, which guaranteed them, and the banks were rid of the toxic loans.

Force wise men to do stupid things, and they'll make it up somewhere...

--------------------
I'd be willing to bet a few choice body parts, that the "1%" employ 10,000 or more times as many folks as the OWS "99%". Do these deadbeats employ anyone?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

texican said:


> Did some insane knee jerk liberal decide that the laws of economics were just not fair, and anybody breathing, whether they had no job, no income, no credit history, and were living in a cardboard box, should have their own home... and then mandate that banks MUST give worthless loans to unworthy borrowers... and the banks forced to do this sold the garbage loans to Freddie/Fannie, which guaranteed them, and the banks were rid of the toxic loans.
> 
> Force wise men to do stupid things, and they'll make it up somewhere...
> 
> ...


The 99% control 60% of the money in this counrty. This is the poor and the middle class and the upper middle class. Wake up, they aren't dead beats. They are the small business owners and the workers of this country. If 99% stopped buying products, the economy grinds to a stop, no matter what the 1% does. It is the 99% that creates the demand for products so that there are jobs. 

There were some bad loans made. But there are a lot of good hard working folks that bought houses that they could pay for. They made sure the houses were kept up, the bills paid on time and they worked hard. But the 1% decided that they'd rather have products produced in other countries. If the American worker wouldn't work for $5 a day, they knew someone that would. 

So these lazy Americans got locked out of their jobs and then locked out of their houses. The 1% got richer. 

If the top 1% pays 40% of the income taxes and the bottom 50% pay nothing, you must realize it is the middle class that is keeping this country going. now the 1% have saddled us with bail out debt that has been spent on multi-million dollar bonuses to the 1%.

Nearly half of the homes in this country are valued at below what is owed on them. Do you really believe that they are all just stupid and lazy?


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> The 99% control 60% of the money in this counrty. This is the poor and the middle class and the upper middle class. Wake up, they aren't dead beats. They are the small business owners and the workers of this country. If 99% stopped buying products, the economy grinds to a stop, no matter what the 1% does. It is the 99% that creates the demand for products so that there are jobs.
> 
> There were some bad loans made. But there are a lot of good hard working folks that bought houses that they could pay for. They made sure the houses were kept up, the bills paid on time and they worked hard. But the 1% decided that they'd rather have products produced in other countries. If the American worker wouldn't work for $5 a day, they knew someone that would.
> 
> ...


When I mentioned the "99%", I meant the scofflaws at the OWS s.it ins.

Sorry to convey this factoid...... But, until you pay a house off 100% it doesn't belong to you, it belongs to whoever loaned the money.

I feel sorry for hard working people that had no idea that they're futures weren't set in stone... and borrowed more money than they could pay off, if they got into trouble. Also feel sorry for the millions that cashed out their equity, when the paper price of their homes soared during the bubble, and took vacations or bought new cars, or whatever, and when the paper price fell, they realized borrowing money against the only real asset they owned was foolish, and now they owed more than their house was worth (under water).

I was pretty much in the DGAS (don't give a s...) arena when it came to the OWS... then their radical marxist scum agenda started rising to the surface... over the weekend, 'did' read a few blogs about their collective thoughts, and sorry, but the abolition of private property is 'fighting words'. Wanna start the 2nd Uncivil War? Let the OWS crowd try and get their agenda in place. Notice how most of the OWS s.it ins are in ultra blue liberal enclave cities? It might be because this bull hockey being presented won't fly in flyover country.

I'm all for the goals of the OWS crowd... I'd be willing to add an extra ten dollars on my IRS 'contributions' next April, to go in and get every single soul that loves the OWS collective agenda a one way boat ride down to that socialist paradise on earth, the greatest country ever, Cuba.

I've always been against the bailouts... if you bugger up in life, in my book, you pay the price. I'd'a let the banks fail, Chrysler, GM, AIG, you name it, Fail... and anyone that invested in them, fail also. Only banks that followed the radical leftist agenda got into trouble... fiscally conservative banks survived nicely. If you fail, you fail...


----------



## NataliaTwoDoes (Mar 24, 2011)

texican said:


> When I mentioned the "99%", I meant the scofflaws at the OWS s.it ins.
> 
> Sorry to convey this factoid...... But, until you pay a house off 100% it doesn't belong to you, it belongs to whoever loaned the money.
> 
> ...


Would you Please share the sources where you found that OWS advocates the abolishing of private ownership of lands? This is a rumor Ive heard but have not yet seen the evidence to support this conclusion.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Excerpted from a blog at 
www.commonsensepolicies.com/blog/2011/11/the-rich-create-jobs/

"The 99% buy more cars than the 1%, they buy more food than the 1%, they buy more homes than the 1%, etc. The true job creators in this country are the 99%,"

I think this sums up who the real job creators are in this country.

Jim


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> "The 99% *buy* more cars than the 1%, they *buy* more food than the 1%, they *buy *more homes than the 1%, etc. The true job creators in this country are the 99%,"
> 
> I think this sums up who the real job creators are in this country


They why are they out in the streets whining about not having a job, when all they need to do is go out and* buy *something to create a job for themselves?


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

NataliaTwoDoes said:


> Would you Please share the sources where you found that OWS advocates *the abolishing of private ownership of lands*? This is a rumor Ive heard but have not yet seen the evidence to support this conclusion.


I don't know how the OWS feels about it, but this IS in our future as part of Agenda 21. 

Not directed specifically at you, NTD, just a general comment here.... I keep seeing posts/threads on topics that are all part of Agenda 21. When I point it out, it's ignored. Many think the Agenda is just conspiracy theory or fear tactic. But, it was set up by the UN and 178 countries signed on... including the US... an attempt at "sustainable development". Here's what the UN says:

_Land&#8230; cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole._

UN's link: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

What part does the US play in this? Again, from the UN:
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/natur.htm#agro

If you search on US Agenda 21, you'll have plenty of links for your reading pleasure.

Sorry to divert the thread, but people need to be aware of why the things that are happening are happening.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

haypoint said:


> The 99% control 60% of the money in this counrty. This is the poor and the middle class and the upper middle class. Wake up, they aren't dead beats. They are the small business owners and the workers of this country. If 99% stopped buying products, the economy grinds to a stop, no matter what the 1% does. It is the 99% that creates the demand for products so that there are jobs.
> 
> There were some bad loans made. But there are a lot of good hard working folks that bought houses that they could pay for. They made sure the houses were kept up, the bills paid on time and they worked hard. But the 1% decided that they'd rather have products produced in other countries. If the American worker wouldn't work for $5 a day, they knew someone that would.
> 
> ...


YES YES YES!!! VERY GOOD POINTS!!

My DH owns the majority of his company. Last year was the toughest they've had in a long while. They had to lay off about 5 people and cut their workforce almost in half. That being said, for about the last 4 years my DH was getting one of the middle salaries. He had a couple employees who were making more than he was (one had more technical skills and lived in CA-higher cost of living. He's since had to let this person go.) Now that he had to go through layoffs he's the top paid person at $65K a year. Not all small buisness owners make $375K-I wish he did! This is not a grunt job, either. They write software for the utility industry. You have to have some gray matter to even think of working there. 

The 'stupid and lazy' OWS supporter here has a Masters of Physics, a Bachelors in Math, employs 5 other people, pays a mortgage in an upside down house, and is a fine upstandign citizen. What's odd is that if you look outside of NYC and the left coast OWS rallies you'll find that it's made up of older folks, mostly underemployed and other good citizens who are just tired of our politicians being bought and paid for by corporations who can run rampant with our tax dollars and who can buy us our politicians. They aren't dirty hippies or whatever it is Rush is calling them this week. They're folks like you and me who are just fed up.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

All I see out of these "OWS" camps-Fine example of Socialist Ideals and Life.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MD Steader said:


> Well in 2009 the "Creators" was anyone making more than $343,927. THAT includes many, many small businesses. Which are or are not people depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on that thread.
> 
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm
> ...












Tnx for the info too.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Darntootin said:


> None without the other 99% to buy products and services.


I'll challenge that-is it only the other 99% buying? Betcha lots of the 1% buy stuff too.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Jim Bunton said:


> Excerpted from a blog at
> www.commonsensepolicies.com/blog/2011/11/the-rich-create-jobs/
> 
> "The 99% buy more cars than the 1%, they buy more food than the 1%, they buy more homes than the 1%, etc. The true job creators in this country are the 99%,"
> ...


Without the 1% money to build, hire and invest there would be no cars to buy.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

texican said:


> Did some insane knee jerk liberal decide that the laws of economics were just not fair, and anybody breathing, whether they had no job, no income, no credit history, and were living in a cardboard box, should have their own home... and then mandate that banks MUST give worthless loans to unworthy borrowers... and the banks forced to do this sold the garbage loans to Freddie/Fannie, which guaranteed them, and the banks were rid of the toxic loans.
> 
> Force wise men to do stupid things, and they'll make it up somewhere...
> 
> ...












And this part of TX post too-

I was pretty much in the DGAS (don't give a s...) arena when it came to the OWS... then their radical marxist scum agenda started rising to the surface... over the weekend, 'did' read a few blogs about their collective thoughts, and sorry, but the abolition of private property is 'fighting words'. Wanna start the 2nd Uncivil War? Let the OWS crowd try and get their agenda in place. Notice how most of the OWS s.it ins are in ultra blue liberal enclave cities? It might be because this bull hockey being presented won't fly in flyover country.

I'm all for the goals of the OWS crowd... I'd be willing to add an extra ten dollars on my IRS 'contributions' next April, to go in and get every single soul that loves the OWS collective agenda a one way boat ride down to that socialist paradise on earth, the greatest country ever, Cuba.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Fowler said:


> Without the 1% money to build, hire and invest there would be no cars to buy.


You are right, but they do not create the jobs. The jobs are created by the demand. Those that build the factories profit from that demand by building factories and hiring workers. If the demand ends the factories are still there, but the jobs are gone. 

That is why so many companies currently have historically high cash reserves. They have the money to build factories. They have the desire to build profitable factories since all businesses are created for one purpose to make profit for the share holders. All they need to start building is sustainable demand, and this will come from the 99% when it comes. 

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They why are they out in the streets whining about not having a job, when all they need to do is go out and* buy *something to create a job for themselves?


Do you really think 99% of the population is out on the street whining? I know nothing about you, but the odds are with me when I say you are part of the 99%. It is a two edged sword. It is hard to buy when you do not have a job, and it is hard to hire when there is no demand. That for better or worse is the theory behind stimulus spending by governments.

Jim


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

ladycat said:


> Just wondering.
> 
> I couldn't find the answer via Google.



.........................And , I'd More interested in How many JOBS the "1%" have created and moved too other countries when they could have been employing American workers ! , fordy:shocked:


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> YES YES YES!!! VERY GOOD POINTS!!
> 
> My DH owns the majority of his company. Last year was the toughest they've had in a long while. They had to lay off about 5 people and cut their workforce almost in half. That being said, for about the last 4 years my DH was getting one of the middle salaries. He had a couple employees who were making more than he was (one had more technical skills and lived in CA-higher cost of living. He's since had to let this person go.) Now that he had to go through layoffs he's the top paid person at $65K a year. Not all small buisness owners make $375K-I wish he did! This is not a grunt job, either. They write software for the utility industry. You have to have some gray matter to even think of working there.
> 
> The 'stupid and lazy' OWS supporter here has a Masters of Physics, a Bachelors in Math, employs 5 other people, pays a mortgage in an upside down house, and is a fine upstandign citizen. What's odd is that if you look outside of NYC and the left coast OWS rallies you'll find that it's made up of older folks, mostly underemployed and other good citizens who are just tired of our politicians being bought and paid for by corporations who can run rampant with our tax dollars and who can buy us our politicians. They aren't dirty hippies or whatever it is Rush is calling them this week. They're folks like you and me who are just fed up.


 I am also a small business owner, and you speak for the vast majority of us. According to a congressional research service report to Congress in early 2010 only 2% of small business had taxable income over the $171,550 that would have put them in the top two tax brackets.

Jim


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Small businesses account for most of the new job creation in the US. Most small business owners create jobs for themselves (taking themselves out of the competitive pool of workers/jobseekers). Many then go on to create hiring opportunities. The one problem in finding accurate statistics is that the definition of a small business varies. Some places refer to a small business as one that employs 10 or fewer employees, while others refer to a small business as something that employs fewer than 100. Even so, small businesses are the generators of new employment, especially in the service industries.

While a new factory could open up somewhere and create 400 jobs during the course of a year, you will find that more than double that amount of new sole proprietorships, LLC's and S-Corps would have been created in that same year. If each of those new businesses only employed the one person that started the company, then they automatically beat the job creation rate of big business.

Most larger companies that still manufacture are either sending jobs offshore to find cheap labor and lower environmental standards or are opting to find leaner manufacturing techniques. These would include the use of automation/industrial robots to reduce manufacturing costs. 

I'm a small business consultant that lives in an old rust-belt city...We see the results of this every day.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2011)

fordy said:


> .........................And , I'd More interested in How many JOBS the "1%" have created and moved too other countries when they could have been employing American workers ! , fordy:shocked:


And I wonder how many factory jobs have been regulated right out of the country.

For example: when the food companies begged the government to raise the sugar quotas because they couldn't get enough supply here. The government refused. 

Result: the cereal, candy, and soft drink companies had no choice except to start moving factories to Mexico, where there are no quotas.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Jim Bunton said:


> You are right, but they do not create the jobs. The jobs are created by the demand. Those that build the factories profit from that demand by building factories and hiring workers. If the demand ends the factories are still there, but the jobs are gone.
> 
> That is why so many companies currently have historically high cash reserves. They have the money to build factories. They have the desire to build profitable factories since all businesses are created for one purpose to make profit for the share holders. All they need to start building is sustainable demand, and this will come from the 99% when it comes.
> 
> Jim



I am the 53%. I work, I spend, Thus keeping people in jobs by buying. 

And to the 46% that claim to be 99, stop complaining, there are jobs you just refuse to do them because it's below your "education".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

The top 1 percent create a lot more jobs than the bottom 50 percent, but to be fair, the next 14 percent down from the top are creating a lot of jobs too. Probably most jobs in this country are created by that top 15 percent who also pay nearly all of the income tax collected in this country. To those of you who like to believe the 99 percent create the jobs by furnishing a demand for products.... wrong.... they create demand, not jobs. Entrepreneurs create jobs in order to produce goods and services to fill the demand, which hopefully translates into profits.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> To those of you who like to believe the 99 percent create the jobs by furnishing a demand for products.... wrong.... they create demand, not jobs.


Demand creates a lot of jobs in China.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ladycat said:


> Demand creates a lot of jobs in China.


Quite true... Chinese entrepreneurs understand the logic of filling demand too. They also dont have to contend with government regulations or unions. This allows them to compete with the US entrepreneurs quite successfully.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Fowler said:


> I am the 53%. I work, I spend, Thus keeping people in jobs by buying.
> 
> And to the 46% that claim to be 99, stop complaining, there are jobs you just refuse to do them because it's below your "education".


So if you lost your job you'd be thrilled to go to Alabama and pick veggies even though you won't make enough to put one kid in daycare or to cover the mortgage?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Fowler said:


> I am the 53%. I work, I spend, Thus keeping people in jobs by buying.
> 
> And to the 46% that claim to be 99, stop complaining, there are jobs you just refuse to do them because it's below your "education".


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> So if you lost your job you'd be thrilled to go to Alabama and pick veggies even though you won't make enough to put one kid in daycare or to cover the mortgage?


Maybe not thrilled but it'd sure beat a tent in a NYC park.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> So if you lost your job you'd be thrilled to go to Alabama and pick veggies even though you won't make enough to put one kid in daycare or to cover the mortgage?


I picked fruit in AZ years ago.... It was money earned honestly,,,, and there were plenty of kiddies playing in the shade of those trees... some folks think outside the box.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

If we ever expect jobs to come back to the U.S. we will have to compete with other countries. If we can't compete the jobs will continue to go elsewhere.
Many things will have to change before we can even start to compete. I am not sure the U.S. will be able to make these changes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

pancho said:


> If we ever expect jobs to come back to the U.S. we will have to compete with other countries. If we can't compete the jobs will continue to go elsewhere.
> Many things will have to change before we can even start to compete. I am not sure the U.S. will be able to make these changes.


Oh, we will make the changes alright, at some point its going to happen, but a lot of spoiled brats are going to throw fits when it happens. I can just see them watering those melons and onion crops with their tears now.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, we will make the changes alright, at some point its going to happen, but a lot of spoiled brats are going to throw fits when it happens. I can just see them watering those melons and onion crops with their tears now.


At some point it will have to happen or there won't be a U.S.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

pancho said:


> At some point it will have to happen or there won't be a U.S.


Even if the US is taken over by some other entity... the land mass will remain, along with the whiners.... but there will be some attitudes changed.


----------



## NataliaTwoDoes (Mar 24, 2011)

EasyDay said:


> I don't know how the OWS feels about it, but this IS in our future as part of Agenda 21.
> 
> Not directed specifically at you, NTD, just a general comment here.... I keep seeing posts/threads on topics that are all part of Agenda 21. When I point it out, it's ignored. Many think the Agenda is just conspiracy theory or fear tactic. But, it was set up by the UN and 178 countries signed on... including the US... an attempt at "sustainable development". Here's what the UN says:
> 
> ...


Thanks Easy day I will give this information a serious examination and if I have any questions, Ill probably send you a PM. This is all new to me so I have to say it might be over my head... In general I dont keep up with UN news.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> So if you lost your job you'd be thrilled to go to Alabama and pick veggies even though you won't make enough to put one kid in daycare or to cover the mortgage?


I have and:
I've planted trees for 3 cents a tree in South Carolina.
I've picked apples in Wisconsin for 2 bucks a bushel.
I've been a waitress for 2.00 an hr.
I've picked watermelons for 20 dollars a day on the weekends.

Why is picking "veggies" in Alabama a new concept to you or anyone else?


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Fowler said:


> I have and:
> I've planted trees for 3 cents a tree in South Carolina.
> I've picked apples in Wisconsin for 2 bucks a bushel.
> I've been a waitress for 2.00 an hr.
> ...


Probably because she thinks veggies come in a can...I had a stupid liberal ask me why I murdered deer-I said"to eat"-she said buy it in a store....guess she did'nt realize store meat was "murdered animal"either...


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

zant said:


> Probably because she thinks veggies come in a can...I had a stupid liberal ask me why I murdered deer-I said"to eat"-she said buy it in a store....guess she did'nt realize store meat was "murdered animal"either...




ound::hysterical:ound::hysterical:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Do you really think 99% of the population is out on the street *whining*?


That's what they call themselves.
That's the terminology you used

I think they actually represent 1-2% at the most, but they want to think everyone agrees with them


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

The 1% fund the small business loans. The small businesses provide jobs. The protestors provide protests that cost small business their customers, cost taxpayers for police and clean up, and potentially cost us our freedom. One of the protestors I heard interviewed was protesting lack of jobs -- he was receiving social security disability. My thought was if he's well enough to protest, camp out, etc. isn't he well enough to be working?

There is no situation that cannot be made worse. The protestors are providing the worse. Our taxpayer dollars are being wasted on these deadbeats and they are costing businesses in the areas where they're protesting much needed income. I can see if this continues to esculate that we'll end up with marshall law and our freedom will be GONE.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

4,200 pages of New regulations are waiting to be signed into law by Ozero-Laws Regulating Business. Another reason there are less and less Jobs.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> The 1% fund the small business loans. The small businesses provide jobs. The protestors provide protests that cost small business their customers, cost taxpayers for police and clean up, and potentially cost us our freedom. One of the protestors I heard interviewed was protesting lack of jobs -- he was receiving social security disability. My thought was if he's well enough to protest, camp out, etc. isn't he well enough to be working?
> 
> There is no situation that cannot be made worse. The protestors are providing the worse. Our taxpayer dollars are being wasted on these deadbeats and they are costing businesses in the areas where they're protesting much needed income. I can see if this continues to esculate that we'll end up with marshall law and our freedom will be GONE.











handicap license plate on his work truck.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2011)

haypoint said:


> handicap license plate on his work truck.


I'm not going to judge, since I don't know the story behind it.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

Handicapped plates are due to mobility issues. Social security disability relates to physical and/or mental inability to work. There are a lot of people with mobility issues that are employed yet need to use handicapped plates.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

7thswan said:


> 4,200 pages of New regulations are waiting to be signed into law by Ozero-Laws Regulating Business. Another reason there are less and less Jobs.


Stop interjecting reality into your posts


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Fowler said:


> I have and:
> I've planted trees for 3 cents a tree in South Carolina.
> I've picked apples in Wisconsin for 2 bucks a bushel.
> I've been a waitress for 2.00 an hr.
> ...


Well get your pickin hat out. Millions out of work and you'll soon be competing with us. I had lots of low paying jobs when I was a boy. Not as many children now as when us Baby Boomers were harvesting fruit. But back then, I didn't have to compete with illegals either. 
Did you own a car or rent a house with your "earnings"? Living at home and working for pocket change builds character, but it doesn't pay the bills.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

ladycat said:


> I'm not going to judge, since I don't know the story behind it.


I know, but I still think its funny.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Well get your pickin hat out. Millions out of work and you'll soon be competing with us. I had lots of low paying jobs when I was a boy. Not as many children now as when us Baby Boomers were harvesting fruit. But back then, I didn't have to compete with illegals either.
> Did you own a car or rent a house with your "earnings"? Living at home and working for pocket change builds character, but it doesn't pay the bills.


I shared expenses with a friend when I was working the orchards, (side by side with plenty of illegals) we teamed up, had one old car between us, and a small apt. I paid my way... didnt have any "bills".


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

NataliaTwoDoes said:


> Thanks Easy day I will give this information a serious examination and if I have any questions, Ill probably send you a PM. This is all new to me so I have to say it might be over my head... In general I dont keep up with UN news.


That would be fine. Thanks for acknowledging it. I injected it into the wood stove regulation thread, and a few others... heck, some of us talked about it a couple years ago on here. Seems it's been forgotten (or folks are suffering normalcy bias) because it's never in the news. (There's a reason for that!  ) We're fighting LA21 (LA = Local Agenda) in a little town nearby here. And folks wonder why there are so many regulations being imposed by this admin. Even Newt mentioned it in one of the debates. Bush is the one that signed us up... what an idjit!


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

NataliaTwoDoes said:


> Would you Please share the sources where you found that OWS advocates the abolishing of private ownership of lands? This is a rumor Ive heard but have not yet seen the evidence to support this conclusion.


A blog post on an OWS site over the weekend... http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/

_Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.

Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.

Institute a 6 hour workday, and 6 weeks of paid vacation.

Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.

Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.

Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.

Create a single-payer, universal health care system.

Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.

Institute a negative income tax, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%.

Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.

Allow workers to elect their supervisors.

Lower the retirement age to 55. Increase Social Security benefits.

Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich.

Ban the private ownership of land.

Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.

Reduce the age of majority to 16.

Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.

Release all political prisoners immediately.

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Abolish the debt limit.

Ban private gun ownership.

Strengthen the separation of church and state.

Immediate debt forgiveness for all.

End the 'War on Drugs'._

Yes, I understand this was just some pie in the sky progressive's wet dream wish list... and that a "collective" cannot have a true voice, or set of demands, and stay a pure collective... yet, the OWS site still allows this post (which they say may or may not be what they really think) to stay on their site.

But, is there any doubt that there final list of demands/wishes wouldn't be very close to this fine outstanding marxist's list.

Natalia... I don't know what your stance on the OWS phenom is... But, if these folks wanted to confiscate your land (assuming you have land, because of your 'goats'), would you feel a tad bit differently? Or, add your land to a "collective" and have a Party Member on site, to regulate your life, to fit in with the Collective's agenda, would you still feel kindly? to them? 

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot believed in collectives, killing the rightful owners and putting others on the land...

Abolishing private property is "fighting words"...


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2011)

texican said:


> A blog post on an OWS site over the weekend... http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/
> 
> _Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.
> 
> ...


Good grief, that is moronic.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ladycat said:


> Good grief, that is moronic.


Best assessment yet.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I know, but I still think its funny.


Why would you thinkits funny to have a handicap plate on a work truck?
Could be the spouse is handicapped.
Could be the worker has something like MS, prevents long walks but can do other work related things.

Oh, I get it, it would be funny to a lib b/c they cannot fathom working if there was a way to live of the gov't instead.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

texican said:


> A blog post on an OWS site over the weekend... http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/
> 
> _Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.
> 
> ...


I have never met a single person who would even think of any of those things. It sounds like a list of possible worst things to ask for.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

pancho said:


> I have never met a single person who would even think of any of those things. It sounds like a list of possible worst things to ask for.


...Hmmmm,you're trying to tell us you've never talked politics with a lib??Okey dokie..


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

zant said:


> ...Hmmmm,you're trying to tell us you've never talked politics with a lib??Okey dokie..


Guess I just quit listening or loose interest when a person gets completely looney.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

pancho said:


> Guess I just quit listening or loose interest when a person gets completely looney.


 Ah ha-you have talked to a lib


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I know, but I still think its funny.


Yep, I can see where some would think its funny that some folks who are physically impaired keep right on being productive citizens.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Fowler said:


> I am the 53%. I work, I spend, Thus keeping people in jobs by buying.
> 
> And to the 46% that claim to be 99, stop complaining, there are jobs you just refuse to do them because it's below your "education".


WhatyoutalkingaboutWillis? I "can't believe" there are over-educated elites that wouldn't take a job that required them to get nasty dirty each day. [being facetious]... unless it was to go out and "protest" and get that 'kind' of nasty dirty..



KnowOneSpecial said:


> So if you lost your job you'd be thrilled to go to Alabama and pick veggies even though you won't make enough to put one kid in daycare or to cover the mortgage?


 I graduated with three degrees, the economy soured (oil prices crashed and it was impossible to get a job in my chosen field), so I rearranged my car loan for a small fee, packed up, and went out West, volunteered ($10/day) with the National Parks... ended up being three years, till I get on paid.

"Now", my business is slow, because of the price of gas... But, I could pack my bags and head to south Texas, Pennsylvania, the Dakotas, and find plenty of 500/day w/per diem easily. Luckily, I've arranged my life to be debt free... mortgages are for silly I can't wait people. I paid cash for mine, built it over two years, and walked in owning it. If someone makes it to middle age and has only the skillset of a migrant worker, it's their own danged fault...



pancho said:


> I have never met a single person who would even think of any of those things. It sounds like a list of possible worst things to ask for.


 Oh I have... back when I worked for the Park Service, I was surrounded by elitists that'd never had a real job in their lives, and since they didn't own a pot to peedoodle in, they thought it was only 'right' that someone else pay societies bills. I don't know many people nowadays who believe that way... I don't hang out with deadbeats that often. Your probably like me, live out in the country where you either work, or own land, and have responsibilities...


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

ladycat said:


> Just wondering.
> 
> I couldn't find the answer via Google.


it would take a lot of work, but if your really wanted to know the info is mostly out there. you could use the forbes 400 richest list.http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/
look up there companies and find employee counts. for example bill gates, the richest in the USA, created microsoft which has 54,687 US employee's http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/inside_ms.mspx

walmart, I think there are 4 of the waltons on the list, claims almost 1.4 million employee's in the US.

thats just two companies and 5 people off the top of my head.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

texican said:


> A blog post on an OWS site over the weekend... http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/
> 
> _Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.
> 
> ...


 My goodness why do you hate the USA so much?
None of those things are good at all.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

From wki and thge office of management and budjet

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[13] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[14][15][16]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[17] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[17][18][19] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[20]


----------



## NataliaTwoDoes (Mar 24, 2011)

texican said:


> A blog post on an OWS site over the weekend... http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/
> 
> _Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response Texican. Please Go back to the "linked-to" page please band read the administration note that says,

"_*Admin Note: This is not an official list of demands. The user "bchang1987" who posted this speaks only for themself, not the movement.( This website would never in a million years endorse a list of demands of the 1%)."*_

I do think its bad PR for them to leave this up and bring attention to it even just the disclaim it, because if people dont read the admin note ( which many have not done) it makes it appear that OWS supports that list. The admin note has been there since the first time Id seen that page days ago. The portion of the quote I placed into parenthesis was added in the last couple of days.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It still means the OWS folks do not know what the heck they want Period.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> From wki and thge office of management and budjet
> 
> According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[13] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[14][15][16]
> 
> In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[17] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[17][18][19] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[20]


And??? :shrug:


----------



## MD Steader (Mar 11, 2010)

texican said:


> A blog post on an OWS site over the weekend... http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/
> 
> _Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.
> 
> ...


Lenin did try this, had to shoot a lot of people to make it work too. In the end for the next 70 years or so everyone stayed home and got drunk (except for that pitch with the Germans). Then the country fell apart.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> And??? :shrug:


Thus you can tax the bottom 80% literally to death and not come near having enough to run the country


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

fantasymaker what are you trying to point out? I would really like to know and currently I don't understand.
we don't tax the bottom 80% to death now nor is any one that I'm aware of wanting to? some on the left think the upper incomes level should be taxed to death.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> and not come near having enough to run the country


They take in far more than actually needed to "run the country"

The problem is they WASTE most of it


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mrpink said:


> fantasymaker what are you trying to point out? I would really like to know and currently I don't understand.
> we don't tax the bottom 80% to death now nor is any one that I'm aware of wanting to? some on the left think the upper incomes level should be taxed to death.


 And even if the rich were taxed to death sort of speak. Oh heck let me put it this way They could be taxed at 100% and that STILL would not even make a good dent into what is needed.
That is why it is Foolish with a capital C to even Think of putting more of a burden on the rich in times like these.
We need the top to stay as they are so they can produce and provide jobs for the rest. and the top along with the rest needs Tax Cuts to give more money into the pockets of the people to spend so the top can produce more and provide more jobs at the same time. You never ever in history has raising the tax of the top produces to fix a ailing economy. It never worked back then and it will not work now either.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2011)

bearfootfarm said:


> they take in far more than actually needed to "run the country"
> 
> the problem is they waste most of it


Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They take in far more than actually needed to "run the country"
> 
> The problem is they WASTE most of it


Post of the Decade....it REALLY is that simple...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> Thus you can tax the bottom 80% literally to death and not come near having enough to run the country


Thats why we dont bother to tax the bottom very much at all. You are aware of course that 85 percent of the income tax collected by the federal government comes from the top 15 percent right? Does it provide enough to "run the government"? NOPE because no matter how much the feds collect in taxes they are going to spend it... and borrow more! We have a spending problem.... not a revenue problem.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

More taxes is not the answer. If the politicians decided to take every cent Bill Gates has to his name, leaving him broke and homeless, it wouldn't make a bit of difference in our national debt. If the politicians decided to take every cent from the top ten wealthiest people in the U.S., the national debt would still grow.
More money is not the answer.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

pancho said:


> More taxes is not the answer. If the politicians decided to take every cent Bill Gates has to his name, leaving him broke and homeless, it wouldn't make a bit of difference in our national debt. If the politicians decided to take every cent from the top ten wealthiest people in the U.S., the national debt would still grow.
> More money is not the answer.


Right on....I read on 1 of tax prof blogs I cruise if you take every penny from the top 100 in USA,the country could run for about 37 days....If I make 2k a month and spend 10k...the financial problem is pretty easy to figure out...


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

mrpink said:


> fantasymaker what are you trying to point out? I would really like to know and currently I don't understand.
> we don't tax the bottom 80% to death now nor is any one that I'm aware of wanting to? some on the left think the upper incomes level should be taxed to death.


 Your right of course we dont tax the bottom 80% to death.......just till they are comatose!
Of that 80% we tax the middle class and upper middle class the highest,but the lowest 20 % those that are actually living in poverty pay a higher rate of *REPORTED* income than the richest 1%!
Tax the rich to death? LOL even in the 50s and 60s when the upper marginal rate was above 90% we never taxed then to death.The way the tax code works by the time you reach the upper leval of taxation you are still left with HUGE surplusses beyound your needs.



arabian knight said:


> And even if the rich were taxed to death sort of speak. Oh heck let me put it this way They could be taxed at 100% and that STILL would not even make a good dent into what is needed..


 That would totally wipe out any dept of this nation in just a year.....making everybody richer after that!



arabian knight said:


> We need the top to stay as they are so they can produce and provide jobs for the rest. and the top along with the rest needs Tax Cuts to give more money into the pockets of the people to spend so the top can produce more and provide more jobs at the same time. You never ever in history has raising the tax of the top produces to fix a ailing economy. It never worked back then and it will not work now either.


You see you have that just backwards.As the top rate has come down from 92% to 35% our economy has failed.
With wealth concentrating near the top and the rich not spending their money in this nation there is less and less in the hands of the working class.
The working class has come to the point were we dont have enough to make the economy work
EXTREAMELY high taxes and more importantly fewer allowed deductions and shelters on the wealthy are the only way to encourage them to employ more workers...those people that WILL spend and keep the economy working.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> My goodness why do you hate the USA so much?
> None of those things are good at all.


Posted on this last night... guess it got 'losted'...

I'm not proposing that insanity, just reposting from an OWS site... someone's 'blog', that was not repudiated by the admins. The trouble with collectives, no one can make a decision... until a 'strong man' comes in and seizes control, and sends anyone else with a 'voice' off to a gulag (if lucky) or to the compost pile (if unlucky).


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> That would totally wipe out any dept of this nation in just a year.....making everybody ricer after that!


Wouldn't even pay the interest on the debt we already have.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

With a gross wealth of 58 trillion and a gross national product of 15 trillion Im pretty sure will could pay off our 5 trillion in debts without a lot of pain in a year.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> With a gross wealth of 58 trillion and a gross national product of 15 trillion Im pretty sure will could pay off our 5 trillion in debts without a lot of pain in a year.


Do you really think it is right to take everything a group of people make to pay a bill the entire nation is responsible for running up?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They take in far more than actually needed to "run the country"
> 
> The problem is they WASTE most of it


Gheesh. There ya go w/facts agin.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

pancho said:


> Do you really think it is right to take everything a group of people make to pay a bill the entire nation is responsible for running up?


Nope not at all.
Thats why I think the rich need to START paying their share.


fantasymaker said:


> With a gross wealth of 58 trillion and a gross national product of 15 trillion Im pretty sure will could pay off our 5 trillion in debts without a lot of pain in a year.





fantasymaker said:


> With a gross wealth of 58 trillion and a gross national product of 15 trillion Im pretty sure will could pay off our 5 trillion in debts without a lot of pain in a year.


Notice I said we could *COULD* pay it off in a year *WITHOUT a lot pain*


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> Nope not at all.
> Thats why I think the rich need to START paying their share.
> 
> 
> ...


I am pretty sure there would be quite a bit of pain. It might not be much pain to you or me but probably those who would loose everything they made would see it a little different.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Thats why I think the rich need to START paying their share.


It's already been proven countless times the "rich" pay far more than "their share"

It's time to stop SPENDING too much, and start making EVERYONE pay a fair share


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's already been proven countless times the "rich" pay far more than "their share"
> 
> It's time to stop SPENDING too much, and start making EVERYONE pay a fair share


Ya I guess they sure do. How many can say they pay 50% to 55% in taxes?
Well the top ones do.
And making them pay even more is not the answer. Period.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Ya I guess they sure do. How many can say they pay 50% to 55% in taxes?
> Well the top ones do.
> And making them pay even more is not the answer. Period.


I gotta call you on this one? who pays 50-55% in federal taxes?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I gotta call you on this one? who pays 50-55% in federal taxes?


He probably meant to say "OF Federal taxes" since that is about how much the top 5% of wage earners pay

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html



> Top 5% 60.14%


----------



## MD Steader (Mar 11, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He probably meant to say "OF Federal taxes" since that is about how much the top 5% of wage earners pay
> 
> http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


Holy Smokes!! Me and Mine are in the top 5%  Well at least I'm not one of those 1%ers who steal money from babies and hide it in their mattresses so its not part of the economy or whatever.. I'm one of the good guys..


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> Your right of course we dont tax the bottom 80% to death.......just till they are comatose!


what taxes are you speaking of here? are you including all federal taxes? state and local taxes? I'm asking because I really would like to know and would like to have some *good* discussion on this?



> Of that 80% we tax the middle class and upper middle class the highest,


until you answer my above question then I will use the assumption you are speaking about federal income and payroll (SS and medicare or the self employment tax for those self employed) tax and capital gains tax. I'm sure you already know a lot of the info I'm about to post but I would like to get to a common starting point.

going on that, our income tax system on earned income (income you receive in exchange for your labor) is a progressive system (liberals often support progressive taxes,some Conservatives and independents also support them). progressive taxes tax those that earn more a higher percentage. it doesn't work out so well because of all the possible deductions. the deductions are available to every one equally if they apply to you. the poorest of the poor do not pay income tax on earned income because of the deductions available to them, in fact those with children often get back more then what they pay in through out the year.

pay roll taxes are regressive, you pay the same percentage no matter how much you earn until you reach the cut off level which is currently just over $106,000. the reason for this cut off level has to do with the maximum SS pays those individuals upon reaching retirement age. every one with earned income pays this tax.

capital gains tax taxes passive income (income from making your money work for you instead of you working for it)
capital gains tax is divided into long term (more then a year) and short term (less then a year). short term capital gains is a progressive tax. it is taxed as normal "earned income". long term capital gains tax is regressive its taxed at a flat percentage (15% I believe) regardless of how much income you have. capital gains tax can be reduced/eliminated with deductions and credits.

these tax laws apply to everyone from the poorest to the richest equally. the kicker is the poorest spend most of there income just trying to survive. this makes it hard for them to work within the tax laws to there benefit.



> but the lowest 20 % those that are actually living in poverty pay a higher rate of *REPORTED* income than the richest 1%!


 you would have to explain this one to me because as explained above the poorest of the poor pay no income tax and may even have a negative income tax rate. it is not possible for the richest to have a negative income tax and the alternative minimum tax ensures they do pay some tax. 



> Tax the rich to death? LOL even in the 50s and 60s when the upper marginal rate was above 90% we never taxed then to death.The way the tax code works by the time you reach the upper leval of taxation you are still left with HUGE surplusses beyound your needs.


they may have been left with huge amounts of money left but at a 90% tax rate they were only left with 10% of what they earned. would you like to work 40 hours to have the pay for 36 of those hours sent to the government leaving you with 4 hours of pay?
there is nothing wrong with having more then you need. if I recall correctly you have a few acres of land. do you need that much? maybe you should donate all of it but 1 acre to some of those poor you claim are being taxed to death and don't have any land. you have to trouble taking money from the rich because they have more then they need. its the same thing. I only have 5 acres I think I need some more. maybe I should come take some of yours. you don't need it all, I know because you were asking about leasing some to the CRP program a while back if I recall.





> That would totally wipe out any dept of this nation in just a year.....making everybody richer after that!


our tax system taxes in come it does not tax wealth. now if you want to tax wealth I have a plan for you.





> You see you have that just backwards.As the top rate has come down from 92% to 35% our economy has failed.
> With wealth concentrating near the top and the rich not spending their money in this nation there is less and less in the hands of the working class.


you are correct we have lowered the top tax rate. 
you are also correct that our economy is failing.
the first is not the cause of the second though. there are many reasons for the economy failing and everyone from the very rich to the very poor, from the far right to the far left has played a part in the economy failing.

the rich do spend money in this nation, just like every one else not all that they spend is on American made items. 
there is less and less in the hands of the working class because we have pushed for higher minimum wages, cleaner environment, safer products, safer work areas, cheaper goods,ETC. we have become noncompetitive in the global market.



> The working class has come to the point were we dont have enough to make the economy work
> EXTREAMELY high taxes and more importantly fewer allowed deductions and shelters on the wealthy are the only way to encourage them to employ more workers...those people that WILL spend and keep the economy working.


the only way to encourage companies to employ more here is to make it profitable to do so. that starts with every american, insisting on American made goods. do without before you by something made some where else. reduce some of the silly regulations we have. support and push for the fair tax to make our goods more competitive on the global market. realize we can't get paid $20.00 to push a broom. vote for politicians that have the good of the U.S. first on there mind instead of increasing there own net worth.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He probably meant to say "OF Federal taxes" since that is about how much the top 5% of wage earners pay
> 
> http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


he may have. its not what he said though which is why I called him on it. it gives him a chance to explain. maybe he knows some one who pays that much in tax.

on a side not I find it funny that you would link to that site for accurate information. the NTU support the fair tax which you oppose.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/ntus-fairtax-information-hub.html



> The FairTax ensures that all Americans pay their fair share of taxes


hmmmm seems you have said in post 96 above



> and start making EVERYONE pay a fair share


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

I believe when you add up:
Fed
State
County
City(yes,folks some cities charge you a tax because you live and work in them)
Fuel(gas,propane,diesel,furnace oil,etc)
Sales
Excise
and the MANY other taxes hidden as fees,etc
The average citizen probably pays 35-50%(depending on income bracket)of their income to Gov't...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

zant said:


> I believe when you add up:
> Fed
> State
> County
> ...


Yuuuup thats it.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

zant said:


> I believe when you add up:
> Fed
> State
> County
> ...


I would be so surprised if it was that low when you consider all those taxes

ETA many of those taxes are regressive and hit the poor much harder then the rich.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

mrpink said:


> I would be so surprised if it was that low when you consider all those taxes
> 
> ETA many of those taxes are regressive and hit the poor much harder then the rich.


Yep-alcohol taxes-cigarettes(75% of what a pack costs),lottery....mostly taxes borne by the poor.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mrpink said:


> I gotta call you on this one? who pays 50-55% in federal taxes?


Those at the very top... if they are unfortunate enough to die and let the feds steal half of everything they own.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

fantasymaker said:


> Nope not at all.
> Thats why I think the rich need to START paying their share.


Problem is, who's to decide who is rich and who is not? Your probably thinking someone with a lot more than you, is rich (that is what most people think about when they're considering who's rich). And the rub is, someone with less than you, is probably thinking You are Rich. In another thread you had a lot of bottomland (50 to a 100 acres) that you wanted to lease to the govt. as a set-aside program. If you have that much land, that you can let lie idle for a decade or so, you sir, to a homeless OWS collective, would be considered rich. With good bottomland going for anywhere between 4 and 10K an acre, you've got a huge storehouse of wealth... way more than most po' folks.

Once you engage in class warfare, the lines blur quickly. Sure, let's confiscate 100% of the wealth of the rich, and watch that evaporate in govt waste and welfare cesspools, in what, three months? Then, it's the well off... Then, it's You and I. Cause, in my book, your rich! I'm rich! Any one on this board who has a few acres is well off. Over 50, your rich! Over a 100, very rich. Over 500, stinking rich. (I know a handful of our members are close to and over the 500 acre mark). Once we start taking out what we consider to be the rich, it's just a matter of time before someone poorer than us realizes we have more than they do, and come after us.

I have some land that I've never walked on... and I want more anytime I can get it... because I now the only true wealth a person can own is real property. I'd never support any person, program, or agenda, that'd take that land away from me, or You. Be careful what you wish for, it might come back and bite you on the buttocks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> on a side not I find it funny that you would link to that site for accurate information. the NTU support the fair tax which you oppose.
> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/ntus-f...ation-hub.html
> 
> Quote:
> ...


The difference is the so-called "Fair Tax" is in no way "fair" and only *pretends* to make everyone pay a fair share, while what I stated is how it REALLY should be


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The difference is the so-called "Fair Tax" is in no way "fair" and only *pretends* to make everyone pay a fair share, while what I stated is how it REALLY should be


but I didn't quote a fair tax site I quoted the national tax payers union. an independent group whose stated purpose is:


> We are a nonprofit, non-partisan citizen group whose members work every day for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels.


the fair tax pretends nothing. it clearly states what it does. it is a small bill that everyone can read it has a plain English version of the bill that everyone can understand. there is nothing hidden, no one is mislead, there is no pretending.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

MD Steader said:


> Holy Smokes!! Me and Mine are in the top 5%  Well at least I'm not one of those 1%ers who steal money from babies and hide it in their mattresses so its not part of the economy or whatever.. I'm one of the good guys..


Could you please explain that? I'm rather dense, being a Bitter Clinger and all... also I missed the progressive's indoctrination camp kool-aid party in college.

1%ers who steal money from babies? Are they stealing it from their 'own' babies? or from the irresponsible welfare leeches that breed their litters for the express purpose of milking the welfare cow?

I have a very simple philosophy about welfare... If I didn't breed em, why should I feed em? If I'm not there getting some of the pleasures, why should I be responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering em? Track down the bio fathers and MAKE them responsible. If they resist, start hanging em off the overpasses going into town. I think after a couple thousand rotting corpses that the welfare breeding males would start to keep their zippers up. You breed em, you feed em, or go to a chain gang...

Since your one of the good guys, your giving all of your money to the government, and letting them decide how to disburse all of your funds? Right? Your starving your own family in order for the grasshoppers of the world to outbreed you?

Class warfare is great! Trouble is, there's always some peckerwood worse off than you, that thinks your rich, and will decide it's time for you to give up what you have, and give it to them.... that's only fair right?


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

texican said:


> (I know a handful of our members are close to and over the 500 acre mark).


500 acre's!!! thats 100 times what I have. they shouldn't be allowed to have that much. no one needs that much! thats not fair! that why some don't have any because a few have it all. we should get the government to take it from them so everyone can have some.

*this is not my true belief only posted to show those that believe we should steal from the rich and give to the poor how silly it looks.*

it looks even more silly when you consider land is truly limited. no more is being made. in contrast money is not limited more is made all the time. one group of people having a lot does not limit others from getting more.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

pancho said:


> I am pretty sure there would be quite a bit of pain. It might not be much pain to you or me but probably those who would loose everything they made would see it a little different.


Nope thats just the point instead of the many of us having to pay pay pay through the pain of doing without things we need SOME could pay from their surpluss!


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Would it help if we said those with Wealth instead of Rich?
Would it then be obvious that those that dont have wealth CANT pay out of their surplus?
I guess the question is do we ask each person to pay the same amount or the same Amount OF THEIR SURPLUS?


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> Would it help if we said those with Wealth instead of Rich?
> Would it then be obvious that those that dont have wealth CANT pay out of their surplus?
> I guess the question is do we ask each person to pay the same amount or the same Amount OF THEIR SURPLUS?



no it doesn't help. we do not tax based on surplus we tax based on income currently. we allow deductions to reduce the income amount.
we do neither.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the fair tax pretends nothing. it clearly states what it does. it is a small bill that everyone can read it has a plain English version of the bill that everyone can understand. there is nothing hidden, no one is mislead, there is no pretending.


I realize it clearly states what it does, and it's clearly not* fair *when it involves "prebates"


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> OF THEIR SURPLUS?


And it is because of their surplus, that builds factories, build new expansions, Build parks like those these owe real they can run all over.
Build play areas for the rest of the people to enjoy when they go on vacation. Donate to hospitals to help make it easier for the country to stay in good health. Donate to schools to help this country stay educated, donate to churches to help keeping faith alive in the USA. And many other reason also too many to name.
And the number one reason to NOT Shrink their surplus They HIRE the working class to make a honest living at, so they also can go on vacation to enjoy what the ok Wealthy have made for them to use also.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I realize it clearly states what it does, and it's clearly not* fair *when it involves "prebates"


fair is a relative word that means different things to different people. I happen to believe any income tax is not "fair" the ideal that some of you here have of a flat income tax with no deductions is the least fair of them all.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The difference is the so-called "Fair Tax" is in no way "fair" and only *pretends* to make everyone pay a fair share, while what I stated is how it REALLY should be


Anytime a progressive mentions the word "fair" or "reasonable" or that old favorite "common sense" I know automatically that it is anything but fair or reasonable... or have anything to do with common sense. Negotiating with a progressive is a recipe for failure...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> With a gross wealth of 58 trillion and a gross national product of 15 trillion Im pretty sure will could pay off our 5 trillion in debts without a lot of pain in a year.


Actually I think our debt is round about 15 trillion this year... and growing by the minute. I am pretty sure I read that we are also "obligated" to the tune of another 38 or 9 trillion in future debt (within the next 30 years) This future debt does not include the normal deficit spending that occurs in our normal business as usual frittering away of our grandchildrens money.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mrpink said:


> but I didn't quote a fair tax site I quoted the national tax payers union. an independent group whose stated purpose is:
> Quote:
> We are a nonprofit, non-partisan citizen group whose members work every day for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels.
> 
> the fair tax pretends nothing. it clearly states what it does. it is a small bill that everyone can read it has a plain English version of the bill that everyone can understand. there is nothing hidden, no one is mislead, there is no pretending.


Well now, this nonprofit, non-partisan citizen group will get their wish for a smaller government if the fair tax is ever passed.  The feds will end up with basically 20 percent of their current revenues to work with by exempting the wealthy from the very unfair income tax.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

texican said:


> Anytime a progressive mentions the word "fair" or "reasonable" or that old favorite "common sense" I know automatically that it is anything but fair or reasonable... or have anything to do with common sense. Negotiating with a progressive is a recipe for failure...


I nor the fair tax movement are hardly progressive in the political use of the word
the fair tax is progressive vs regressive in the tax use of the word.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well now, this nonprofit, non-partisan citizen group will get their wish for a smaller government if the fair tax is ever passed.  The feds will end up with basically 20 percent of their current revenues to work with by exempting the wealthy from the very unfair income tax.


if that is the case then you and other tea party members that desire to reduce spending should be jumping all over it.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

ladycat said:


> Just wondering.
> 
> I couldn't find the answer via Google.


According to the percentages being refernced currently by various talking heads in the financial sector, 45% of American jobs are created by small businesses employing 500 or fewer workers. That leaves 55% of American jobs created by industry employing 500 or more and the state and federal government.

If you figure 10 to 15 percent of American jobs are government jobs that leaves 40 to 45 percent of job creation to large cap companies employing larger staffs that often fall into the realm of the Bill Gates, Warren Buffets and such.

So the job creation percentage numbers are about equal between the large cap and small cap businesses and the top 1% income Americans can easily participate in both large and small cap businesses and they usually do.

If you research most large cap industry core investors and owners, it's not uncommon to find them also owning or investing in small businesses with goals of growing them into fresh growth industries to some day take the place of a current large cap investment when it runs its 40 to 60 year corporate life span.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mrpink said:


> if that is the case then you and other tea party members that desire to reduce spending should be jumping all over it.


Ok, ya got me on that..... cutting off their funds wouldnt really make that much difference. Congress doesnt seem to care whether or not they actually have the revenues coming in to support their spending. We have to remember that its not a revenue problem.... they take in plenty, they just spend about twice what is coming in. If we dropped off 80 percent of their revenue.... they would simply borrow more to make up the difference.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

I thought about that later after I shut down the computer. still thinking about a passed balanced budget bill I reckon


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

ladycat said:


> Just wondering.
> 
> I couldn't find the answer via Google.


Does it really matter? A good employee makes a company money; they are (hopefully) not an expense. Which means that any employee works day in and day out to make their rich employer (guess what?) richer. How can anyone be happy with this picture? Yet anyone who does work in this situation becomes amazingly defensive and becomes extremely protective against any protests made to their employer. It seems that the rich truly have America in a stranglehold, and few are smart enough to see it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Does it really matter? A good employee makes a company money; they are (hopefully) not an expense. Which means that any employee works day in and day out to make their rich employer (guess what?) richer. How can anyone be happy with this picture? Yet anyone who does work in this situation becomes amazingly defensive and becomes extremely protective against any protests made to their employer. It seems that the rich truly have America in a stranglehold, and few are smart enough to see it.


Yep, an employees job is to make money for the boss. Thats just the nature of the game. As to how anyone can be happy with that arrangement.... its easy... the boss compensates the employee for their efforts... hopefully fairly and honestly as per the "agreement" that both sides agree to when the employee takes the job. Its simply a business arrangement... I will do this... and you give me that in return. Both sides win if the agreement is done correctly. Most businessmen understand this, and live up to their end, employees... not so much. There is no "strangle hold" on people in our country.... each and every one of us are free to make our own choices and decisions... we can opt to work for wages we deem unfair... or we can seek out other means to provide for our own needs. There are other companies out there, and there are lots and lots of opportunities that can be capitalized upon if one wishes to go into business for themselves.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, an employees job is to make money for the boss. Thats just the nature of the game. As to how anyone can be happy with that arrangement.... its easy... the boss compensates the employee for their efforts... hopefully fairly and honestly as per the "agreement" that both sides agree to when the employee takes the job. Its simply a business arrangement... I will do this... and you give me that in return. Both sides win if the agreement is done correctly. Most businessmen understand this, and live up to their end, employees... not so much. There is no "strangle hold" on people in our country.... each and every one of us are free to make our own choices and decisions... we can opt to work for wages we deem unfair... or we can seek out other means to provide for our own needs. There are other companies out there, and there are lots and lots of opportunities that can be capitalized upon if one wishes to go into business for themselves.


Good points, very good points. So, provided that an employee is willing to do what the boss says, and the boss is all right, all is well. Although quite frankly I don't like having a boss; I worked as a farmhand for a while. I'm pretty sure I insulted them a couple times, and haven't heard from them for quite some time now.  Better just stay my own boss.
But look at the bigger picture. Small farmers face a continuous flow of Big Agri bullying. Oh, they all claim it's Big Government, but it's quite obviously the agri giants behind it. How is the gov't supposed to stay small, when the corporations want it bigger to squash competition?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> How is the gov't supposed to stay small, when the corporations want it bigger to squash competition?


Well, they might start by obeying the supreme law laid out in our Constitution... and telling the corporate lobbyists to take their suggestions with them on their way out the door.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll challenge that-is it only the other 99% buying? Betcha lots of the 1% buy stuff too.


Not enough to maintain the economy. I don't know many businesses that rely totally on the patronage of millionaires. All the Ferrari dealerships on the planet do not produce enough business to keep the US economy afloat for one second.

Yup, like it or not the 1% need the other 99 to stay in business. Every consumer is a "job creator" from the very rich ( who are a minority ) to the very poor, without which the economy grinds to a halt pretty quickly. All the consumption of the top 1% is very little compared to the total consumption of the other 99.


----------



## sevenmmm (Mar 1, 2011)

texican said:


> Anytime a progressive mentions the word "fair" or "reasonable" or that old favorite "common sense" I know automatically that it is anything but fair or reasonable... or have anything to do with common sense. Negotiating with a progressive is a recipe for failure...


Oh, man, I could comment about every one of your posts to this thread. But for the sake of trying to get along, I will simply agree there will never be "fair and/or reasonable". So, it stands to reason if too much wealth is accumulated into too few hands there is discontent and resentment. This always leads to conflict. Most of the time political change. Sometimes civil war. And once in awhile, a bloody revolution.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Which means that any employee works day in and day out to make their rich employer (guess what?) richer. How can anyone be happy with this picture? Yet anyone who does work in this situation becomes amazingly defensive and becomes extremely protective against any protests made to their employer. It seems that the rich truly have America in a stranglehold, and few are smart enough to see it.


Would it be wise for an employer to hire employees to make them poorer? 

Don't think so.

People who invest their capital do so with the motive of making money, not losing it. Losing money is the provenance of the government. Private interests, like you and I, who work for ourselves, cannot afford to hire folks, if it's going to cost us money. If I do hire someone, I pay them an honest wage, and expect an honest days work. If they can't/won't work, I don't ask them back. [I dislike having folks here, so it's been a couple years since I've had workers on the place] If I can't get a profit out of them, why bother? I can lose enough of my own money fast enough, without help from others... :grin:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

texican said:


> Would it be wise for an employer to hire employees to make them poorer?
> 
> Don't think so.
> 
> People who invest their capital do so with the motive of making money, not losing it. Losing money is the provenance of the government. Private interests, like you and I, who work for ourselves, cannot afford to hire folks, if it's going to cost us money. If I do hire someone, I pay them an honest wage, and expect an honest days work. If they can't/won't work, I don't ask them back. [I dislike having folks here, so it's been a couple years since I've had workers on the place] If I can't get a profit out of them, why bother? I can lose enough of my own money fast enough, without help from others... :grin:


Ya for sure.
Gee, sure they want to make a profit, and live "The Good Life". That is whats its all about.
After all this is America.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Which means that any *employee works day in and day out to make their rich employer (guess what?) richer*


Employees work to make *THEMSELVES *richer.

The "rich boss" is ALSO working, and HE is making his own money AND the money paid to the workers through sales of the companies products or services


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

sevenmmm said:


> Oh, man, I could comment about every one of your posts to this thread. But for the sake of trying to get along, I will simply agree there will never be "fair and/or reasonable". So, it stands to reason if too much wealth is accumulated into too few hands there is discontent and resentment. This always leads to conflict. Most of the time political change. Sometimes civil war. And once in awhile, a bloody revolution.


So do you think that this admin is here to stay? B/c its leanig towards 'spreading the wealth'? Or are you advocating a war/revolution?
How are you gonna take away the 1%'s $$?
What about stuff other than $$$? Other wealth?
In college, there could be a 'grade point' pool. No matter how hard ya work, everyone gets a 3.0. And land. No matter who's purchased what, we'd all have a couple acres. 
Fair is fair.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> So do you think that this admin is here to stay? B/c its leanig towards 'spreading the wealth'? Or are you advocating a war/revolution?
> How are you gonna take away the 1%'s $$?
> What about stuff other than $$$? Other wealth?
> In college, there could be a 'grade point' pool. No matter how hard ya work, everyone gets a 3.0. And land. No matter who's purchased what, we'd all have a couple acres.
> Fair is fair.


I think anyone can see we arenât headed towards anything close to âspread the wealthâ in this country. The wage disparity in this country ranks us about 46th in the world, just ahead of Haiti. 
The top 1% controls half of the money in this country. Each year they control more. One could argue that since it takes money to get elected, those with most of the money can control who gets elected.
With the assurance that tax laws and free trade will benefit the top 1% at the expense of the 99%, the super-rich continue to rake in more and more money.
In the past 30 years income for the top 1% has grown 275%. You seem fine with that. Will you be fine with it when they control 75% of the money? 99% of the money. We are set on a course where the 1% will eventually control everything. Yet you want to give them tax breaks? 
They head financial institutions and brokerage houses that they filled with worthless junk and used our savings and investments for the future to trade on junk bonds while they sharply increased their wealth.
Take a look at Wall Street Dow Jones today. Down again. You can be sure the top 1% arenât invested in the failing stocks. Also, we now know that our elected politicians have been allowed to do the same insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to prison. Once the top 1% and the Politicians get done at the Stock Market feeding trough, donât expect to see your retirement money ever again.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

On the news this morning.

Over then 256 million shoppers were out on black friday. Average amount each shopper spent was $400. In the same weekend just a single movie made over $40 million dollars.
Black friday showed a 7% increase over last year.

Remind me again how bad the economy is and how many people are becoming poor.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2011)

pancho said:


> On the news this morning.
> 
> Over then 256 million shoppers were out on black friday. Average amount each shopper spent was $400. In the same weekend just a single movie made over $40 million dollars.
> Black friday showed a 7% increase over last year.
> ...


How much of those dollars were going on credit cards with interest?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

ladycat said:


> How much of those dollars were going on credit cards with interest?


Probably a large percentage. 
Last week it was on the news also that credit card use was down over other years.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> In the past 30 years income for the top 1% has grown 275%. You seem fine with that. Will you be fine with it when they control 75% of the money? 99% of the money. We are set on a course where the 1% will eventually control everything. Yet you want to give them tax breaks?


It's called sticking their heads in the sand. Of course, no one ever said ostriches were intelli - never mind.
Much easier to follow the crowd than actually look at facts and carve your own way. 
"Since the rich give me perks, I'll help the rich get some perks, too."


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, they might start by obeying the supreme law laid out in our Constitution... and telling the corporate lobbyists to take their suggestions with them on their way out the door.


:hysterical: Yeah right!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darntootin said:


> Not enough to maintain the economy. I don't know many businesses that rely totally on the patronage of millionaires. All the Ferrari dealerships on the planet do not produce enough business to keep the US economy afloat for one second.
> 
> Yup, like it or not the 1% need the other 99 to stay in business. Every consumer is a "job creator" from the very rich ( who are a minority ) to the very poor, without which the economy grinds to a halt pretty quickly. All the consumption of the top 1% is very little compared to the total consumption of the other 99.


I agree with you up to a point.... the one percent needs a lot of the 99 percent to make the economy work. However I dont think anyone needs those among the 99 percent who do basically nothing to contribute to the economy. For those here who own animals... I am sure we recognize that a heart will not continue to beat without the numerous other organs working together to keep the critter alive. I am pretty sure that most of us recognize too that parasites do not normally contribute to the overall health of said critter. We have a habit in our society of feeling sorry for parasites.... to the extent that we now provide them with all of their needs and offer them incentives to go forth, be fruitflys and multiply.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darntootin said:


> :hysterical: Yeah right!


It "could" happen..... 

but its going to take a lot more TParty types to throw them out of office everytime they get out of line.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Shrek said:


> If you figure 10 to 15 percent of American jobs are government jobs that leaves 40 to 45 percent of job creation to large cap companies employing larger staffs that often fall into the realm of the Bill Gates, Warren Buffets and such.
> 
> So the job creation percentage numbers are about equal between the large cap and small cap businesses and the top 1% income Americans can easily participate in both large and small cap businesses and they usually do.
> .


Didnt you forget the selfemployed and the underground economy?


----------



## sevenmmm (Mar 1, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> So do you think that this admin is here to stay? B/c its leanig towards 'spreading the wealth'? Or are you advocating a war/revolution?
> How are you gonna take away the 1%'s $$?
> What about stuff other than $$$? Other wealth?
> In college, there could be a 'grade point' pool. No matter how hard ya work, everyone gets a 3.0. And land. No matter who's purchased what, we'd all have a couple acres.
> Fair is fair.


Other than voicing concerns the competition will not implement the necessary corrections to put this country back on a positive track. 

Nope, and although I think we are heading towards a civil war closely followed by revolution, I do not advocate, nor will get involved in any action that results in killing others. I'm going to find a big cat tail swamp and hide.

You can't take away anything from the 1% in a legal context. Even if we pointed the steer-less revenuers towards the 1%, their well-paid lawyers would devise the means to sidestep the action. 

As far as the other wealth, there again, we, as in the general population of the United States, can only win if a real Teddy Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson type gained the White House.

Most Americans have no idea how to grow food on their own spot of land. I think that would be the best type of education in the coming decades. 

Oh. For the record these are only my opinions...


----------



## sevenmmm (Mar 1, 2011)

pancho said:


> On the news this morning.
> 
> Over then 256 million shoppers were out on black friday. Average amount each shopper spent was $400. In the same weekend just a single movie made over $40 million dollars.
> Black friday showed a 7% increase over last year.
> ...


How much of what these people are buying would be useful to a homesteader?ound:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

sevenmmm said:


> How much of what these people are buying would be useful to a homesteader?ound:


Just about nothing. Mostly all costly toys.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

fantasymaker said:


> Didnt you forget the selfemployed and the underground economy?


Self employed are included in the 1 to 500 employee small cap stats unless the report is about how many in the small cap sector are self employed.

Underground economics unless a part of police enforcement statistics generally show up as sales revenues in both small and large cap sectors but moreso in the services group of both.

For example , a few years ago there was an economic report directed at the underground economic effect on a high drug traffic community area. As the police reduced the drug trafficking, fast food establishments, gas stations , big box stores, pizza deliveries etc. showed noticable revenue declines as the drug traffic reduced.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

pancho said:


> On the news this morning.
> 
> Over then 256 million shoppers were out on black friday. Average amount each shopper spent was $400. In the same weekend just a single movie made over $40 million dollars.
> Black friday showed a 7% increase over last year.
> ...


 Yes I heard that also. Big screen tv's even 3D TV's are gaining agin in popularity. Now just wait till next summer when Apple comes out with a TV. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if that iTV or what ever it is finally going to be called, will be selling quite well.
And they say even today as "On Line Sales Day", are going on, it will be higher as well.
I just ordered a few things from Hickory Farms because of its sale today.
They make nice Christmas gifts.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree with you up to a point.... the one percent needs a lot of the 99 percent to make the economy work. However I dont think anyone needs those among the 99 percent who do basically nothing to contribute to the economy. For those here who own animals... I am sure we recognize that a heart will not continue to beat without the numerous other organs working together to keep the critter alive. I am pretty sure that most of us recognize too that parasites do not normally contribute to the overall health of said critter. We have a habit in our society of feeling sorry for parasites.... to the extent that we now provide them with all of their needs and offer them incentives to go forth, be fruitflys and multiply.


I agree, plenty of wealthy parasites too though.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.....................The super wealthy of today have NO conscience with the exception of a minor few like Bill Gates , etal . , the majority of the remainder take their UNtaxed profits and deposit such into foreign banks and invest those funds into foreign factories creating foreign jobs , which then, EXport those products too the USA and so they're allowed too accumulate their wealth without creating any jobs in the USA ! , fordy


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fordy said:


> .....................The super wealthy of today have NO conscience with the exception of a minor few like Bill Gates , etal . , the majority of the remainder take their UNtaxed profits and deposit such into foreign banks and invest those funds into foreign factories creating foreign jobs , which then, EXport those products too the USA and so they're allowed too accumulate their wealth without creating any jobs in the USA ! , fordy


And whose fault is that? We the people have the opportunity every couple of years to correct this problem,,,, why havent we?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And whose fault is that? We the people have the opportunity every couple of years to correct this problem,,,, why havent we?


Yes and that is where it should be taken care. Not in the streets destroying property and having the tax payers saddled with the bills those owe folks are pilling up, on the different cities and states.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> they're allowed too accumulate their wealth without creating any jobs in the USA !


That's called "freedom"

Why is that a problem with you?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's called "freedom"
> 
> Why is that a problem with you?


 Then we have the 'freedom' to raise their taxes.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And whose fault is that? We the people have the opportunity every couple of years to correct this problem,,,, why havent we?


Hence, OWS?? Surely you don't expect a corporate backed candidate to turn around and bite the hand that feeds them? And surely you can't expect too many corporations to back a candidate who advocates shutting down the gravy train? I'm afraid we are way beyond that, we cannot vote our way out of this.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's called "freedom"
> 
> Why is that a problem with you?


Is it also freedom when they lobby and bribe representatives to get advantages in the market place? Passing laws to force the public to buy their products and stifle competition?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Then we have the 'freedom' to raise their taxes.


Sure they can be raised and hurt the economy when ya do. Nobody is saying the government can't, we are saying they Shouldn't be raised at al in fact they alone with others should be lowered, especially the corporate taxes.
That is about the only way to stimulate things up in this country.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darntootin said:


> Hence, OWS?? Surely you don't expect a corporate backed candidate to turn around and bite the hand that feeds them? And surely you can't expect too many corporations to back a candidate who advocates shutting down the gravy train? I'm afraid we are way beyond that, we cannot vote our way out of this.


We did quite a bit towards voting ourselves out of the mess with the last election. With any luck at all our TParty backed candidates will continue to replace the corrupt career politicians. Ows??? I dont have much faith in a bunch of dead beats accomplishing much other than fowling their "nests" at the tax payers expense to clean up.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darntootin said:


> Is it also freedom when they lobby and bribe representatives to get advantages in the market place? Passing laws to force the public to buy their products and stifle competition?


Nope.... thats not freedom.... that is the lefts way of forcing us further down the path to destruction. How many of our conservative representatives or senators in washington supported or voted for Obamacare?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We did quite a bit towards voting ourselves out of the mess with the last election. With any luck at all our TParty backed candidates will continue to replace the corrupt career politicians. Ows??? I dont have much faith in a bunch of dead beats accomplishing much other than fowling their "nests" at the tax payers expense to clean up.


I don't feel much difference since the last election. I really haven't noticed much difference before and after an election in many years. Things stay pretty much the same. People who were for the winning side are happy and say things will now change. People who were on the loosing side will complain and say wait until next election. Sometimes the democrats win and sometimes the republicans win.
Looking back over the last 40 years of my life I can't see any difference any election has made. Haven't noticed any difference when a democrat was president or a republican was president.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's called "freedom"
> 
> Why is that a problem with you?


This country has had tariffs on imports since 1776. A few years back we stopped it and the economy has been in a free-fall since.
Ross Perot said there would be a giant sucking sound if we had a free trade agreement with Mexico and China. He was right. It only helps the rich. Ever hear a working class person in this country rejoice over a free trade agreement? Nope, me either.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> I don't feel much difference since the last election. I really haven't noticed much difference before and after an election in many years. Things stay pretty much the same. People who were for the winning side are happy and say things will now change. People who were on the loosing side will complain and say wait until next election. Sometimes the democrats win and sometimes the republicans win.
> Looking back over the last 40 years of my life I can't see any difference any election has made. Haven't noticed any difference when a democrat was president or a republican was president.


That is because they are all bought by the same people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

pancho said:


> I don't feel much difference since the last election. I really haven't noticed much difference before and after an election in many years. Things stay pretty much the same. People who were for the winning side are happy and say things will now change. People who were on the loosing side will complain and say wait until next election. Sometimes the democrats win and sometimes the republicans win.
> Looking back over the last 40 years of my life I can't see any difference any election has made. Haven't noticed any difference when a democrat was president or a republican was president.


Nope, we havent felt a lot of difference... but its early in the game... forty or fifty new faces is not enough to swing the game.... but its a good start and we have already seen "some" of the affects. It was enough to stop Obama and his leftist friends from causing much more harm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Then we have the 'freedom' to raise their taxes.


Overtaxing is part of what drives them out of the country to begin with


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Is it also freedom when they lobby and bribe representatives to get advantages in the market place? Passing laws to force the public to buy their products and stifle competition?


You'll have to ask the Congressmen about that


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'll have to ask the Congressmen about that


I'd rather just fire them and elect honest folks from within our own communities to replace them with.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'd rather just fire them and elect honest folks from within our own communities to replace them with.


So would I. But realisticly, it won't happen.

Most humans are so weak when it comes to money. If youâve ever experienced a divorce or splitting up a small estate among brothers and sisters or cousins, youâll better understand that even a little money makes people crazy. 

Iâve seen it happen locally. Some honest citizen stands up for the little guy and gets elected to public office. In about 6 weeks, he understands that if he wants anything done he must approve stuff the big money is pushing. 

But generally, when the rich back a candidate, run ten times the ads, post ten times the banners, launch last minute mudslinging against his opponent, we know the outcome.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Then we have the 'freedom' to raise their taxes.


well, you can try... but they may just take their ball and glove and go to some other park to play ball.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> So would I. But realisticly, it won't happen.
> 
> Most humans are so weak when it comes to money. If youâve ever experienced a divorce or splitting up a small estate among brothers and sisters or cousins, youâll better understand that even a little money makes people crazy.
> 
> ...


Yep, I have dealt with sneakin liein thieves quite a bit.... All to familiar with how greed affects some folks... the worst of the lot in my experience has been the elderly widow ladies and preachers.... not necessarily in that order. 

Money can only buy the votes of those willing to sell them. not saying I havent ever accepted a jug or a twenty dollar bill to vote a certain way... but I can honestly say no one has ever influenced my vote with money or other forms of bribery. I was going to vote for them anyway.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, I have dealt with sneakin liein thieves quite a bit.... All to familiar with how greed affects some folks... the worst of the lot in my experience has been the elderly widow ladies and preachers.... not necessarily in that order.
> 
> Money can only buy the votes of those willing to sell them. not saying I havent ever accepted a jug or a twenty dollar bill to vote a certain way... but I can honestly say no one has ever influenced my vote with money or other forms of bribery. I was going to vote for them anyway.


Read the book " Capital Punishment" written by a guy that got caught doing what everyone else was doing, but went to prison. I'm not sure the spelling, but Amazon has it. 

Here is about the closest thing we've got to an honest politician:

http://www.adn.com/2011/11/29/2193840/tv-spot-to-air-in-iowa-urges-palin.html


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Overtaxing is part of what drives them out of the country to begin with


That's what they've programmed you to think. Evidently programming is easier with some than with others, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's what they've programmed you to think. Evidently programming is easier with some than with others, wouldn't you say?


Actually studying the data is what causes me to see the trend between overregulation and high taxes and the corresponding "outsourcing" of our businesses. I will agree though that programming does seem easier with some than others.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> well, you can try... but they may just take their ball and glove and go to some other park to play ball.


This is the big show, and if they want to do business here then their ball and glove ain't going anywhere. If they want to do business in the biggest consumer economy in the world they can play by the house rules or good luck selling in Taiwan or Mexico or one of the other places they have sent our jobs.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Check the second segment of the Ed Show for a graph of wages for the 1%
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/45662464/#45662201


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

Probably ALL of them ...... a poor or destitute person has never hired anyone for suitable employment ......
Ohio Rusty ><>


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, I have dealt with sneakin liein thieves quite a bit.... All to familiar with how greed affects some folks... the worst of the lot in my experience has been the elderly widow ladies and preachers.... not necessarily in that order.
> 
> Money can only buy the votes of those willing to sell them. not saying I havent ever accepted a jug or a twenty dollar bill to vote a certain way... but I can honestly say no one has ever influenced my vote with money or other forms of bribery. I was going to vote for them anyway.



You seem very well informed, so I will believe that your vote has not been bought. The majority of voters are not as well informed, and get a high percent of their information about the candidates from 30 second ads. These can be positive or negative, but the most effective ads are usually run by the best financed candidates. This is true for two reasons. They can afford better talent for production, and repetition of a message gives it the appearance of truth and they can afford to run it more often. While they would feel sure their vote was not bought in reality it was. Not with a jug or a twenty, but with slick ads and planted "news" stories".

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Taxes are not the driving force moving jobs overseas. We expect to be paid a decent wage, work in a safe environment, be treated fairly by our employers, and not have companies destroy our environment and then walk away and leave the mess for us to clean up. I for one do not think we should lower those expectations.

America is the fourth most productive country per hour worked. Behind Norway, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. We are not finished by a long way and need to quit playing the victim and just start buying American whenever possible and let retailers know we prefer American products. Force congress to pass legislation mandating labeling for country of origin on all products. 

Jim


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> Taxes are not the driving force moving jobs overseas. We expect to be paid a decent wage, work in a safe environment, be treated fairly by our employers, and not have companies destroy our environment and then walk away and leave the mess for us to clean up. I for one do not think we should lower those expectations.
> 
> America is the fourth most productive country per hour worked. Behind Norway, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. We are not finished by a long way and need to quit playing the victim and just start buying American whenever possible and let retailers know we prefer American products. Force congress to pass legislation mandating labeling for country of origin on all products.
> 
> Jim


Just one look at a walmart parking lot will show the majority of people do not agree with you. It sounds good but not going to happen.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

pancho said:


> Just one look at a walmart parking lot will show the majority of people do not agree with you. It sounds good but not going to happen.


You're probably right, but cutting corporate taxes and giving up our standard of living isn't the answer. Companies will still take their jobs to places with the lowest costs. We need to continue to do what it takes to lead in innovation, and technology. Those jobs are the future. The jobs that have left are the past.

Jim


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> You're probably right, but cutting corporate taxes and giving up our standard of living isn't the answer. Companies will still take their jobs to places with the lowest costs. We need to continue to do what it takes to lead in innovation, and technology. Those jobs are the future. The jobs that have left are the past.
> 
> Jim


Just my opinion but I think we will have to adjust our standard of living. Forget about credit until we can pay off what we already owe. Buy what we can afford and spend less trying to impress other people. The rest of the world is not going to change just for us. We will have to compete. Right now we can't compete and the lack of jobs show that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

pancho said:


> Just my opinion but I think we will have to adjust our standard of living. Forget about credit until we can pay off what we already owe. Buy what we can afford and spend less trying to impress other people. The rest of the world is not going to change just for us. We will have to compete. Right now we can't compete and the lack of jobs show that.


Very true. The days of High incomes just maybe over with the World Economy into play like it is now, Way more then ever before in history. We just can't compete selling our products with the rest of the world can make the same hint at much lower cost. SOme of theses ways to make it more competitive is Git Rid Of The Corporate Taxes.~!! We are now the HIGEST in the World~!!!!
So saying lowering taxes is not the answer, it sure is the way to top, when Other countries are becoming more business friendly with taxes then the USA is.
Other countries HAVE already Lowered their corporate taxes. The USA MUST follow suit is lose even more jobs because of companies moving out to make it more even keel on prices.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I don't mind that idea. All of us, shoulder to shoulder working harder for less. Just make sure you don't notice that 1% that is earning more on your day's labor than you earn in a week.Swing looooow, sweet chariot, commin' fo' ta' carry me home.....


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

haypoint why are you so worried about what 1% of this nation makes? why not worry about what haypoint makes and let everyone else worry about themselves. I've heard you say you have a job that is in demand and make a good living at it, so why worry about others doing better then yourself?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mrpink said:


> haypoint why are you so worried about what 1% of this nation makes?


I cant speak for haypoint... but with some of the people I have known personally who worried about the other peoples money it was a matter of jealousy and selfishness. They simply cringe at the thought that someone might make a dollar off of "their" labor. The problem with that thinking is this.... nobody is ever going to make anything off of someone elses labor. When the worker sells his labor, and is paid for it, its no longer his, it belongs to the feller that bought and paid for it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mrpink said:


> haypoint why are you so worried about what 1% of this nation makes? why not worry about what haypoint makes and let everyone else worry about themselves. I've heard you say you have a job that is in demand and make a good living at it, so why worry about others doing better then yourself?












Maybe b/c haypoint thinks it isn't "fair"? Maybe he's one that thinks the GB Packers should give some of their points to KC, Jax, etc. Or those who make a 4.0 grade ave should give a point or so to the 2.0 kids.


----------



## CountryGoalie (Aug 31, 2004)

Home Harvest said:


> Most people are not employed by an individual. I work for a small retail store, owned by 2 people. My paycheck has the store's incorporated name on it, not the owner's names. Not sure how that statistic shows up in the census. I doubt you'll find the stat you are looking for.


This.

That said, my father and my dh both work for a man I would guess is a "1%er"... built up a retail company from scratch, stores all over the northeast, sold it for millions (with a non-compete clause, lol), dabbled for a few years, has now started a new chain in a different "arena" of business, has built that up to about a dozen stores wthin the state and was planning to expand further before the economy tanked. So... there's everyone he employs...

And my mother works for a guy... dunno if you'd call him 1% but he's well-off... retired nuclear sub guy... owns like 5-6 businesses he has started... food service, physical therapies, child care,etc. Sees and opening, jumps on it! He employs lots of people - and his therapy companies are great for hiring overseas-trained therapists who are looking for a legal way into the country (from Phillipiens, Poland, etc)... but I digress.

Pardon the typos - this was sent via Tapatalk on my cell phone!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe b/c haypoint thinks it isn't "fair"? Maybe he's one that thinks the GB Packers should give some of their points to KC, Jax, etc. Or those who make a 4.0 grade ave should give a point or so to the 2.0 kids.


Iâm not trying to âmake things more fairâ that are already fair. It isnât about tilting a level playing field.

The top 1% control the infrastructure that you live in and compete in. If we all lived in self-sustaining communities, it wouldnât much matter that there were other communities where other people had more luxuries. But todayâs society connects us to those that own the businesses that supply us with what we need to live. Plus we, in turn, depend and expect a level playing field in regard to our jobs. 

I am doing fine. But, Iâve seen hard working, moderate living families shoved into poverty, along with everyone else in their community, when a CEO decided to close the factory that has been generating ever larger profits each quarter, because he can make a bit more profit by moving to Mexico.

Iâve seen people with Bachelorâs and Masterâs degrees spend 40 hours a week for years, filling out job applications and submitting resumeâ to no avail. 
I see more and more people losing any opportunity to earn a living as this countryâs economy continues to sink. People are quick to blame government regulations and high labor costs. But I find it interesting that the incomes of the top 1% rocket ever higher each year and no one blames their bloated incomes on a faltering economy.

This isnât about taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. It is about getting our country back to where it once was, where everyone had a chance to earn a living.

There is all that mumbo-jumbo going on Wall Street that even the investors donât understand what they are selling. But their million dollar salaries and multi-million dollar bonuses keep rolling in. While the investments made by working class folks with money they earned through their labor is lost. 

Maybe you donât know anyone that is living in his car because his retirement was invested by his broker in companies that spun off the profitable segments and his shares became worthless. Maybe you donât know anyone that is living without heat so they can afford to hold onto their house. Every day, more people become homeless, more people exhaust their unemployment and fall off the list of unemployed, forgotten.

The middle class is going away, bit by bit. It could be any one of you. You sneer at those on unemployment, but how secure is your job? Most thought they had job security, right up until the pink slip arrived. One by one, the jobs dry up.

And you want to give tax breaks to the people that are rolling in dough?
Those business owners with incomes in the upper 20% ($100,000 and up)have generally earned their money. They produce services and products and supply jobs. But when you get to the very top it is often something that you are born into, the untouchable upper crust. 

They control our political system, they control our laws, they dictate our economic futures.

We hate Russia for snatching up families in the night, to never be seen again. But we support a system that promotes a way where families are deprived of an opportunity to work, thrown from their homes, ridiculed for accepting food stamps and largely forgotten.

At some point youâll see. As the 1% amasses ever larger fortunes, exert more governmental control, while your vote means less and less and the middle class continues to slide into poverty, thereâll come a point when you wake up. As the infrastructure, that is supported by the huge middle class tax base, withers.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Iâve seen people with Bachelorâs and Masterâs degrees spend 40 hours a week for years, filling out job applications and submitting resumeâ to no avail.


Send them out to my place.... I have plenty of work for them around here. Of course those degrees of theirs better be made of leather.... It will protect them from all the thorns while cleaning out the fencerows.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> At some point youâll see. As the 1% amasses ever larger fortunes, exert more governmental control, while your vote means less and less and the middle class continues to slide into poverty, thereâll come a point when you wake up. As the infrastructure, that is supported by the huge middle class tax base, withers.


Seems to me like someone posted the numbers on this just the other day that the middle class increased their own wealth over the past few years too..... by something like 60 percent if I remember correctly. That doesnt sound to me like they are "slipping into poverty". :shrug:


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

sevenmmm said:


> Oh, man, I could comment about every one of your posts to this thread. But for the sake of trying to get along, I will simply agree there will never be "fair and/or reasonable". So, it stands to reason if too much wealth is accumulated into too few hands there is discontent and resentment. This always leads to conflict. Most of the time political change. Sometimes civil war. And once in awhile, a bloody revolution.


Don't worry, I hold nothing said in GC/Politics against anyone. We probably agree on more things in general, than disagree...

It is a simple fact, Life Ain't Fair. We're all born equal, but a millisecond afterwards, it's all tilted one way or another. Some folks are raised to succeed, some are raised to only ever fail. Some are born in the 'sewer' but ingrained with a culture of bettering theirselves, and leave the sewer, and some simply thrive in the sewers, and raise multiple generations of others who love the sewer...


Darntootin said:


> Not enough to maintain the economy. I don't know many businesses that rely totally on the patronage of millionaires. All the Ferrari dealerships on the planet do not produce enough business to keep the US economy afloat for one second.
> 
> Yup, like it or not the 1% need the other 99 to stay in business. Every consumer is a "job creator" from the very rich ( who are a minority ) to the very poor, without which the economy grinds to a halt pretty quickly. All the consumption of the top 1% is very little compared to the total consumption of the other 99.


Methinks your misconfusing producers/makers and consumers/takers. The poor create no jobs... they consume services/goods provided/created by the producers/rich. They create demand... the rich serve that demand, and pocket a profit off of it.


fordy said:


> .....................The super wealthy of today have NO conscience with the exception of a minor few like Bill Gates , etal . , the majority of the remainder take their UNtaxed profits and deposit such into foreign banks and invest those funds into foreign factories creating foreign jobs , which then, EXport those products too the USA and so they're allowed too accumulate their wealth without creating any jobs in the USA ! , fordy


The old saying about attracting more flies with honey, than vinegar, is true... make the climate worse here for making a (greedy) profit (through taxes, mandatory wages, regulations) and the work will go elsewhere. As long as American's insist on voting in Big Govt. Lovers (Big Business Haters) work is never coming home.


Bearfootfarm said:


> Overtaxing is part of what drives them out of the country to begin with


Shhhhhh...

Of course, a lot of businesses get all 'greedy' and move from high tax states to zero tax states, like TX, first, before moving overseas.

.......I thought this thread had died weeks ago...

Some folks thinks you can punish the smart (who've already figured out how to stay in business, by going where they can make a profit) and expect them to ever want to come back. You beat them up at every chance, call them every name in the book, and tell them if they do come back, your going to beat them up, take everything they have from them, and hang them in effigy at every opportunity...... but, pretty please, with marxist karo syrup on top, please come back. Some folks missed that day in school where they explained economics. [I missed a week of school, and they dealt with some grammer issues, which I've had to 'think' about ever since, instead of it being automatic]

Oh, and to any of ya'll that are in some kind of business (owner or employee) how many destitute po' folks do ya'll service? [lets automatically exclude the 'vice' services, of liquor, smokes, and drugs] Do they keep your business alive? Do they provide you with work? or are they just consuming a product your selling?


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Iâm not trying to âmake things more fairâ that are already fair. It isnât about tilting a level playing field.


if things are fair then why brake them? why make them unfair?



> The top 1% control the infrastructure that you live in and compete in. If we all lived in self-sustaining communities, it wouldnât much matter that there were other communities where other people had more luxuries. But todayâs society connects us to those that own the businesses that supply us with what we need to live.


its always been that way and always will. its living in society.



> Plus we, in turn, depend and expect a level playing field in regard to our jobs.


I don't expect nothing from a job other then to be paid for the work I have preformed at a pay level that was agreed upon by both parties before the work started.



> I am doing fine.


then you are not giving as much as you should be so that you would be doing the same as those that are less off then yourself. you prove with this very statement that you do not preach as you speak.




> But, Iâve seen hard working, moderate living families shoved into poverty, along with everyone else in their community, when a CEO decided to close the factory that has been generating ever larger profits each quarter, because he can make a bit more profit by moving to Mexico.


a CEO has a legal duty to create as much profit as possible for the shareholder. A CEO or a company has now obligation to worry about the community they operate in.



> Iâve seen people with Bachelorâs and Masterâs degrees spend 40 hours a week for years, filling out job applications and submitting resumeâ to no avail.


its tough out there in most places. its a bad time not to be employed.



> I see more and more people losing any opportunity to earn a living as this countryâs economy continues to sink.


thats what happens in bad rescission's/depressions.



> People are quick to blame government regulations and high labor costs.


you don't see companies moving to countries with higher labor costs and stricter regulations do you? must be something to it.



> But I find it interesting that the incomes of the top 1% rocket ever higher each year and no one blames their bloated incomes on a faltering economy.


not sure if you are talking incomes or wealth here. I've seen a few CEO's work for 1$ salary. most work for more some even get huge salaries, again it is an agreed to contract between two parties if you are not one of the parties it does not concern you. if it bother's you that much do not spend money there.
passive income is a favorite for the left to attack. wealthy people know how to grow there money just like a corn farmer knows how to grow corn. I don't do to well at neither but I don't begrudge them of that.



> This isnât about taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. It is about getting our country back to where it once was, where everyone had a chance to earn a living.


I do believe we have always had poor and we always will not every one is born with equal abilities. in times past we have had wealthy with more wealth then what we do now. this is nothing new. I agree with getting corporations out of government but we have to get government out of corporations as well.



> There is all that mumbo-jumbo going on Wall Street that even the investors donât understand what they are selling. But their million dollar salaries and multi-million dollar bonuses keep rolling in. While the investments made by working class folks with money they earned through their labor is lost.


then those working class folks need to learn more about the market before they invest in it. market has always been a gamble its not some magic place where you plant your money and it grows forever. you have to understand it. know when and where to plant and when to harvest and replant it in something else. even then you will take some loss its the nature of the game.



> Maybe you donât know anyone that is living in his car because his retirement was invested by his broker in companies that spun off the profitable segments and his shares became worthless. Maybe you donât know anyone that is living without heat so they can afford to hold onto their house. Every day, more people become homeless, more people exhaust their unemployment and fall off the list of unemployed, forgotten.


nope. I choose to pay off my place before I invested in the market. seems a wise decision to me. I've never received a dime of unemployment. have been unemployed though. in those times I do what I have to do to survive and keep on trying. this last recession was to much for my old boss he closed down the business to preserve the capital he had left. so I started doing odd and end jobs to pay the few bills I have. its called life we make choices and live with the outcome. we don't go griping to the government to force someone to take care of us. that's not what this country was founded upon.



> The middle class is going away, bit by bit. It could be any one of you. You sneer at those on unemployment, but how secure is your job? Most thought they had job security, right up until the pink slip arrived. One by one, the jobs dry up.


I agree it is getting smaller because few want ta accept the response-ability of taking care of themselves and instead want the government to do it. you advocate for the same thing.



> And you want to give tax breaks to the people that are rolling in dough?
> Those business owners with incomes in the upper 20% ($100,000 and up)have generally earned their money. They produce services and products and supply jobs. But when you get to the very top it is often something that you are born into, the untouchable upper crust.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Seems to me like someone posted the numbers on this just the other day that the middle class increased their own wealth over the past few years too..... by something like 60 percent if I remember correctly. That doesnt sound to me like they are "slipping into poverty". :shrug:


No, that's not what the figures posted said. In 30 years the NOT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION wages for the middle class (60% of the people are here) went up 40%. That's the same table where the next up, the top 19%, increased their incomes 65% and the super wealthy, the top 1% saw their income jump 275%.

Here are a few other ways to explain it to you:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8459664

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/middle-class-areas-shrink-as-income-gap-grows-report-finds.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...7.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-25/middle-class-disappearing/50914822/1

Most of these figures take time to collect, so are a couple years old. I believe that we have had a faster drop recently than any figures shown here.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> No, that's not what the figures posted said. In 30 years the NOT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION wages for the middle class (60% of the people are here) went up 40%.


http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
According to the calculator... I put in 1980 and 2010. 


> What cost $1 in 1980 would cost $2.61 in 2010.
> 
> Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1980,
> they would cost you $1 and $0.34 respectively.


That is a 261% increase in inflation, did I do that right? Thus, what dang whit of good is a 40% increase in wages? Net result: Loss of wages.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

texican said:


> Don't worry, I hold nothing said in GC/Politics against anyone. We probably agree on more things in general, than disagree...
> 
> It is a simple fact, Life Ain't Fair. We're all born equal, but a millisecond afterwards, it's all tilted one way or another. Some folks are raised to succeed, some are raised to only ever fail. Some are born in the 'sewer' but ingrained with a culture of bettering theirselves, and leave the sewer, and some simply thrive in the sewers, and raise multiple generations of others who love the sewer...
> 
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
> According to the calculator... I put in 1980 and 2010.
> 
> 
> That is a 261% increase in inflation, did I do that right? Thus, what dang whit of good is a 40% increase in wages? Net result: Loss of wages.


Ok, I just looked up the average wage in 1980 according to the good folks at the SS administration and they claim the average wage in 80 was about 12.5K annually. They also claim the average wage in 2010 was right at 41.6k which means average wages went up by 300 percent during this time period. If those numbers are as correct as the ones from westegg.com then it would appear that wages have indeed exceeded inflation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> No, that's not what the figures posted said. In 30 years the NOT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION wages for the middle class (60% of the people are here) went up 40%. That's the same table where the next up, *the top 19%, increased their incomes 65% * and the super wealthy, the top 1% saw their income jump 275%.
> 
> Here are a few other ways to explain it to you:
> 
> ...


Ok, I just went to your first link and noticed quite a discrepancy between what you claim above and what they claim. 

"The poorest Californians lost 21 percent of their income; the middle, 11 percent and the wealthy just 8 percent of their income."

So have the wealthy gained 65 to 275 percent or lost 8 percent?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I just looked up the average wage in 1980 according to the good folks at the SS administration and they claim the average wage in 80 was about 12.5K annually. They also claim the average wage in 2010 was right at 41.6k which means average wages went up by 300 percent during this time period. If those numbers are as correct as the ones from westegg.com then it would appear that wages have indeed exceeded inflation.


Well then, that is good to know.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Well then, that is good to know.


Yer welcome


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I just looked up the average wage in 1980 according to the good folks at the SS administration and they claim the average wage in 80 was about 12.5K annually. They also claim the average wage in 2010 was right at 41.6k which means average wages went up by 300 percent during this time period. If those numbers are as correct as the ones from westegg.com then it would appear that wages have indeed exceeded inflation.


Mine did not go up quite that much from 1980 to 2000 but 3/4 of the way~!!
It went from right around 12K to I just looked at my 2000 tax return and it was 24K, and was still going up so by '04 I was at 28K.
So indeed i was way ahead of inflation. And if still working I would now be over 32K a year. Not bad at all.
And I also thank God my wages were still going up in '04 as that is when I had to quit working on go on SS Disability and they used those last 2 years as a nice figure for my SS.
And now even after Medicare is taken out I am not doing as badly as a lot people are when on SS.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Since 1980, my income went way up from $11k per year in 1982 to $75k per year in 2001 (life in corporate management), then way back down (semi-retirement). I'm not sure how anyone compares their income with inflation. Are there actually people who are satisfied with doing EXACTLY the same thing for 40 years? I could go out tomorrow and get a job making $10-20k more than I'm making now, but I'd have to commute an hour and work 60 hour week, 6 days a week. I left all that behind, and I'm not going back.

As far as the OP's question. I still haven't seen the stats, but I bet nearly 100% of the jobs are in some way due to the efforts of one of the 1% individuals. All of our jobs in the corporation I worked for depended on the money from the shareholders. That's how it works. I don't get the problem. I also don't get the OWS movement.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Home Harvest said:


> I also don't get the OWS movement.


I wouldnt worry too much about that.... I am still not convinced that they do either.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Try John Menard he hires lots of folks :shrug:


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Here are a few other ways to explain it to you:
> 
> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8459664


Remember, this article is about California... the statistics are suspect, seeing as the most productive members of the state left for friendlier states (less taxes and regulations). Those left 'behind' will naturally have worse conditions....


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

It doesn't matter since it is not their job to provide jobs for others nor is it their job to pay for those that are not in the 1%


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Jan Doling said:


> It doesn't matter since it is not their job to provide jobs for others nor is it their job to pay for those that are not in the 1%


Welcome to the discussion, Jan. Better late than never. Let's say you are right. It is not their job to provide any of the 99% in this country jobs. So why are we talking about giving them tax breaks? They aren't their brother's keeper and the 99% had better get that straight. Let's put it to a vote and see who needs to pay their FAIR share.

Some folks believe that iif we give them tax breaks they will invest and expand their business and create jobs. But they aren't doing that. Fine. They don't have to. Let's stop pretending if we make them richer, they'll care about us. Nope, Jan is right.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Let's put it to a vote and see who needs to pay their FAIR share.


Oh, well now, if we are going to make everyone pay their "fair" share..... last time I looked that was running about 10 grand a year per person. Looks like the wealthy few would be getting a heckuva tax break.... while a few would remain about where they are.... and the other ninety percent..... well. they voted for fair.... lettem cough up.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, well now, if we are going to make everyone pay their "fair" share..... last time I looked that was running about 10 grand a year per person. Looks like the wealthy few would be getting a heckuva tax break.... while a few would remain about where they are.... and the other ninety percent..... well. they voted for fair.... lettem cough up.


Your idea of fair is different than mine. The infrastructure in this country is costly to maintain. Those that control big business depend on and use this infrastructture much more than the average Joe. 

Shipping channels, roadways, airports, rail are parts of this wonderful infrastructure that big business (and the ones that profit most) depend on. The working guy, say, running a Pet Grooming business doesn't need most of that, but he pays federal taxes that provide it to others. 

Generally the more you make, the more you use this infrastructure.

Becides, do you think it is only the poor that get tax breaks? Really?


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Not all jobs require a degree, if everyone has an office job who would do the physical work? 

Everyone has to start somewhere. Whats wrong with the bottom? Some think that just because you spent 4 yrs in college and owe 40,000 or more for your education that you are entitled to a higher paying job. If you spent that four yrs working and starting from the bottom you could have already been making what you think your degree should get you. 
Now I'm not against getting an education but I am against complaining about not getting a job because you think you should move straight to the top. Heck by now you could have been a manager at Mcdonalds making 40,000 a yr.....JMO


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Your idea of fair is different than mine. The infrastructure in this country is costly to maintain. Those that control big business depend on and use this infrastructture much more than the average Joe.
> 
> Shipping channels, roadways, airports, rail are parts of this wonderful infrastructure that big business (and the ones that profit most) depend on. The working guy, say, running a Pet Grooming business doesn't need most of that, but he pays federal taxes that provide it to others.
> 
> ...


Everyone benefits greatly from our infrastructure. how do you suppose everyone gets all those goodies shipped to their hometown? Fair is Fair.. equal is equal.... having every person pay an equal share of the bill is fair.... its not practical... but it IS fair. Thats why the government instills an unfair "progressive" income tax.... its the only way to raise enough revenue to keep things afloat.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Everyone benefits greatly from our infrastructure. how do you suppose everyone gets all those goodies shipped to their hometown? Fair is Fair.. equal is equal.... having every person pay an equal share of the bill is fair.... its not practical... but it IS fair. Thats why the government instills an unfair "progressive" income tax.... its the only way to raise enough revenue to keep things afloat.


A guy running a trucking company uses the taxpayer infrastructure more than a hillbilly on a country road. 

But through it all I'm arguing against the rich takers and you are arguing for the rich makers. OWS was against the rich takers, but the media made them look like poor takers.

What I'm looking for is a way to protect the poor makers ( the working poor) from the rich takers ( those that don't produce anything, just manipulate people from their money). 

But you argue for the rich makers as if there aren't rich takers and then you see those that object to the rich takers as poor takers. 

When the poor makers lose their chance to make because the rich takers took too much, then the rich makers lose their market (the poor makers) and they stop being rich makers and the poor makers become poor takers. As our economy swirls down the toilet.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> A guy running a trucking company uses the taxpayer infrastructure more than a hillbilly on a country road.
> 
> But through it all I'm arguing against the rich takers and you are arguing for the rich makers. OWS was against the rich takers, but the media made them look like poor takers.
> 
> ...


Well we do see things a bit differently. I am particularly amused by how the rich takers "manipulate" people from their money. How exactly do they do that? by selling them products cheaper than they can buy them anywhere else, or produce them for themselves? Oh... and where do those poor takers get the money that is supposedly being manipulated from them???


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

parents used to teach their kids to intertain them selves. But apperently the OWS group got left out of that little bit of education.
Your right all they need to do is buy themselves a job. Go to the thrift store and pick out some good stuff, put it on e-bay for a profit. Start a mow blow and go or shovel some snow. Till peoples gardens. Cut fire wood. do some thing. If you all are so mad at the big guys why are you waiting around for them to hire you?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The American Dream: Work hard, be careful with your money and someday you'll be rich.
Nope. Here is how wealth works in america:

The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Department Of Energy.


The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers.

That's costing us just $16 million per job.

One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).

The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi, who is the brother to Nancy's husband.

He is the uncle of California 's Lt. Governor Calvin Newsome.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tonopah solar is a project to make electricity, not jobs. Just like all the loans given out to companies to build nuke plants.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> A *guy running a trucking company *uses the taxpayer infrastructure more than a hillbilly on a country road


He pays a LOT more taxes for it too


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOochWYvVV0[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTyzRJn3Puc&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LhqlWv9K4Q[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpdpMjG5CmY&feature=related[/ame]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=MmusrhoEPyU&NR=1
Especially the final 15 seconds


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

So, after reviewing the links posted I have to conclude that someone is a wee bit jealous of those who have had more success in life. :shrug: Better luck next time!


----------

