What is it that you are afraid you won't recognize about America if Obama does everything you think he wants to?

Not knowing what President Obama’s objectives are (as far as America is concerned), I really can’t say. However, I am concerned about the infringement of our rights that we were granted by the Constitution / Bill of Rights. President Obama did not create the Dept. of HomeLand Security, it was created by former President Bush. President Obama did not create the Patriot Act, it was also created by former President Bush. However, President Obama has shown no inclination to reign in either of these creations. He also signed into law the most recent NDAA act that allows the military to detain American citizens indefinitely. So, my biggest concern is that he will continue to over-rule our rights as American citizens. However, I seriously doubt that we would be any better off under the rule of the Republicans… as long as the big corporations & the big banks continue to rule our country.

They are afraid that he will enact laws that will take money from working people and give it to non-working people. Back in the old days, working people kept all of their money and non-working people would just starve to death,
[Maybe I misunderstood the Conservatives?]

@RocketGuy That’s a little of what us “conservatives” believe, actually. Not the whole starving to death thing. We just don’t want our tax money to go to waste on things that really aren’t necessary. Like giving welfare checks to the lazy people in the ghetto. They aren’t actually disabled (I have an aunt who’s doing this), they just act like they are so they can get through and live off the system without lifting a muscle. It really pisses people off when you see your tax money going to people like that.
I also heard about them taxing the rich even more. What are they trying to do? Make them middle-class by taxing them to death? I feel like we’re in China now; the government allowing us just enough money to live on. How do you think those rich people got to the top? They (gasp!) worked for it. The money wasn’t just handed to them on a silver platter. How would you feel if you made a lot of money and almost 90% of it was given to the people who don’t do a darn thing! You’d be pretty angry, wouldn’t you? This Robin Hood-Logic is just stupid… (I’m just telling you this from a Republican view so you don’t misunderstand what our views really are).

^ priceless.

I wonder @BBawlight, just how you arrived at the idea that the people who live in the ghetto are lazy? Your views as a Republican, have “Demonized” the Americans who have fallen into poverty – often thru no fault of their own. Our economy was driven into recession by the big banks & Wall Street’s manipulation of home loans & most of the ‘rich’ people of which you speak, made their money with various shady financial situations. Most of the poor in America are called ‘the working poor’ for a reason. They work very hard, but they do not make enough money to both pay the rent & put food on the table. The big corporations have seen to it that American jobs have been sent to other countries because Congress has seen to it that they receive subsidies for sending American jobs to other countries. You clearly do not have any compassion or empathy for those Americans who do not get enough to eat, and many of them are children.

I won’t recognize a medical care system that isn’t so broken. It’ll throw me for a loop when I can apply for health insurance and not be rejected for some minor, petty “pre-existing condition” (such as having been medicated for a UTI last year). I’ll be at a loss when I see health care dollars going toward patient care rather than redundant overhead, executive compensation, and shareholder dividends.

@BBawlight I must ask then; how many innocent people must suffer so that you may punish one guilty one? Yes, there are some that game the system, but there are many more who do not.

There are some Republicans who are caught in various scandals, should we assume that all Republicans should be prosecuted? If not then the reasoning is fallacious, and if so then roughly half of America belongs in prison. So, which is it?

I too feel like we are in China; a small, corrupt, wealthy ruling class prospering at the expense of the masses. Republicans are so afraid of Socialism that they distance themselves so far from it that they meet it on the other side and get to the same place. The reasoning you use to be angry at those trying to survive in an era where CEOs are cutting wages, hours, and headcounts are the same reasons the rest of us are angry at the current system of trickle-up economics.

How would you feel if you had food taken out of your mouth and the roof yanked from over your head so that your boss could get heated seats on their Gulfstream jet? And it would be entirely your fault to boot. Wouldn’t that piss you off?

Guys, @BBawlight is a young teenager, so take it easy.

I asked a similar question on Facebook a while back, and the conservatives of my friends and family basically said the same thing: “He’s trying to make us Europe #2!” Since they all said it, I assume they’d heard it from Limbaugh or Fox News.

When I asked what, specifically, they meant by that, my aunt posted a comment about having open air meat butchering, going to the bathroom in a hole in the ground, and no refrigeration in grocery stores, all while having outrageously high tax rates. I refuted that with facts and figures, but none were swayed.

@BBawlight: (you may be a young teenager but if you’re going to swim with the big fish, you’re going to swim with the big fish): First, when you accuse people in the “ghetto” of being lazy and gaming the system, I can tell you (as someone who works in a “welfare office” that as long as documentation is received proving income or lack thereof, it’s hard to prove otherwise. People on welfare do have nice phones, and that upsets all of us who work there, but to prove who owns the phone, pays for the phone (paid for by pre-paid, paid for because someone gave them a gift) is just one example of how it would take so much effort to prove something (or disprove).

As far as giving to disabled, if they provide documentation saying they are, who and how would you disprove that? A doctor writes that the person is disabled. Who are you (or who are we as “welfare workers”) to say otherwise? Because someone appears to walk ok, for example? That would be proof?

As far as taxing the rich, you probably heard yourself during the most recent campaign (or some time thereabouts) Warren Buffett, who as you may know is an ultra-zillionaire, pointed out that his secretary paid more in taxes, percentage-wise, than he did. So how is that fair and how would that break him if he paid a bit more to catch up? I am not just singling him out, I am referring to the upper class as a whole.

There are so many misconceptions here it is hard to know where to begin. We have been fighting the ‘war on poverty’ for decades. We’ve spent $trillions on it and haven’t made a dent. Is it possible that our approach is wrong? That simply giving money to the poor doesn’t really lift them out of poverty but rather perpetuates it? That maybe we are creating a dependent class that will never be able to support themselves? Republicans believe this is the case.

All the talk of Republicans supporting the rich is hogwash. What we support is growing the economy. It’s really quite simple. The more money you pull out of the economy, the less growth you get. Taxes pull money out of the economy. Think about this for a minute. The total of all wages and salaries in the US is just over $6 trillion. Of that ⅓ is paid by the government (welfare, SS, aid the dependent children, etc.). It doesn’t matter whether you think people deserve this money or not. It doesn’t matter if they are lazy or hardworking. What matters is that of the $6 trillion only $4 trillion is real productive wages. And of that $4 trillion $2 trillion goes directly to the unproductive. That leaves $2 trillion for everything else. Paying government workers, building roads and bridges, or any other hair-brained project you can think of. And how high do we need to tax that $2 trillion to make it work?

We need to lower the number of people on government welfare. To do that, we need to grow the economy and provide jobs. That will raise government revenue and lower government spending. Win-win.

The alternative is Greece. Greece didn’t get into trouble because they had too much debt. They got into trouble because the interest on the debt rose. Once the interest rates start rising, there is nothing you can do to stop it. The higher it goes, the more likely you are to default and the more likely a default the higher the interest rate. My concern is becoming Greece. Draconian cuts to welfare, retirements, government employment, and all the rest. We can stop it now without those draconian cuts but we don’t have much time. Our debt is poised to overtake us. It has nothing to do with ‘empathy’ or the ‘rich’. “It’s the economy stupid” – Bill Clinton.

@Jaxk Of all of the wage increases that the increased prosperity has brought, the VAST majority has gone to the top. The elite have more that quadrupled their income while the average person has seen increases that don’t always beat inflation.

There have been enough years of giving incentives to the rich to create jobs. that was the entire reason for the huge tax breaks they got. Guess what? Didn’t happen, so I see the investor class as even worse than the unemployed meth-heads down on Aurora since at least the drug addicts didn’t cause me hardship.

If you are in favor of a stronger economy, how can you support a division of wealth that stifles consumer spending (lower demand for goods/services—> lower employment) and forces people onto the government teat? If you are in favor of ending policies that do not work then how can you favor continuing the the tax breaks to the people who haven;t done what we gave them the means to do?

To say that the Republicans do not support the rich tells me that either you are lying or that you are too ignorant of the laws of Cause and Effect, and of Unintended Consequences to be taken without a HUGE grain of salt. If you want to end the welfare state, provide jobs that people are qualified for, that are accessible, and that pay enough to live self-sufficiently.

Last I checked, there was no place in the US where a person could live on a full-time minimum wage job, yet many employers that have openings have only part-time and/or low-wage jobs that do not allow self-sufficient living. Either that or they acknowledge that the job market favors them heavily enough that they set their requirements so high that most are unqualified. If you truly believe even half of what you typed above, tell the Investor class to fix that ASAP or we will continue to hold them liable for the consequences of their negligence/incompetence.

@jerv, @jca, and @Linda_Owl I know that not all people in the ghetto are lazy, I used to live there and my mom worked her ass off to get us where we are today. I’m not assuming that all of them are, just that a lot of them are. From a personal point of view, my mother lived in the ghetto and was barely scraping by with her two young children and a job at the local Burger King, I know what it means to struggle. I look at the ghetto when we drive by and you know what I see? I see people who have no self-respect whatsoever. They walk around like they’re proud to be where they are because they’re lazy and they’ve “outsmarted the system”.

I don’t mind the disabled, but there is quite a way to prove if someone is faking or not. My uncle (married to aforementioned aunt) gets his check in the mail like he’s supposed to, right? He gets that check because he apparently has at least 7 seizures a day now, even though before they got married, he barely had even one a year. These outrageous claims are great ways to check the reality of what they are saying.

That’s all I really can say because I have to question our sources from which this information has come. Where do you get all of your political news from? The media, of course.
So if you listen to a liberal radio station or read a liberal newspaper, there is going to be a heavy amount of bias. Especially against the conservatives (we have tons of bias against liberals as well). What they say might as well be what they want it to be. So how authentic can our information be? We live in these areas that have a certain political standpoint, so our opinion is greatly affected by what they say. We don’t even bother to question the source because that’s all we’ve seen.
So I hear about the taxes and the liberals and the disabled and all these political problems from my dad, who hears it from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (two republican radio show hosts) and that’s where I get my political views from.
So how do we know if this information isn’t just words twisted around to benefit the party?

@BBawlight Thank you for calling the entire states of VT and NH, and the quiet, low-crime suburbs of Seattle “ghetto”.~

I get my views largely based on what I see. Most Conservatives I see are either quiet or they are like you; they assume that the fact that I was laid off and unable to find work for 13 months despite applying for anything I could do was my fault, that jobs outnumber applicants, that there is no possible way that a single opening would have so many hundreds of applicants within hours of posting that they employer stopped taking applications, that it is possible for any American to live on <$20k year, and that that paltry sum will leave enough money to pay for healthcare. You ignore all that simply because the only thing you see is your uncle.

In short, I see far less of the fraud that you do and far more of the honest poor, and of the delusional, inhuman, out-of-touch Conservatives. than you. When was the last time you slept in a car during a New England winter? How many days did your mother starve herself to feed you? In this, I think our difference of opinion comes from a difference in personal experience.

I have no respect for the professional welfare case, but I am not going to punish the proud-but-unlucky person who is going out of their mind because, through no fault of their own, they are unable to provide for themselves and must take assistance to survive.

And if you say that that is because they lack drive and will, then you better become the next POTUS, cure cancer, and walk on water, because if you don’t then that proves that the “all it takes is drive, so they must be lazy” line is a bunch of bullshit. I will look for you on the 2016 ballot, list of Nobel Prize winners, and news from the Vatican certifying the Second Coming. Yes, some people are lazy, but not nearly so many as Republicans think.

And no, I don’t listen to talk radio or read papers from either side; they are generally so extremist that nothing they say can really be taken seriously.

@jerv You have all of my perceptions completely wrong, and I’m quite embarrassed because I couldn’t convey my opinion correctly.
I realize whose fault it is and that you can’t help the fact that you got laid off or that you can’t find a job. I don’t ignore any of the things you claimed I do. I see faults, yes. However, that is not the only thing I see. It’s not because of my uncle, even though I used him as an example. I’m not stupid. I may see things from a certain point of view, but you don’t know how long I have brooded over this subject and the various perspectives that come with it. I see many things. You might even say that I see everything.

I don’t see half as much fraud as you claim I do, the only reason you think I see that much fraud is because that was the only thing I spoke about. I realize that there are honest, hard working people out there, and I hold a lot of respect for those people.
(I can’t experience a NE winter because of the fact that I live nearer the equator than that and it barely gets below 32 degrees, but don’t think that my family hasn’t experienced just as much hardship because of that little fact).
I understand that people must take assistance to survive, I’m not saying that there aren’t people like that. I was specifically stating my opinion about the dishonest people. Nobody else. You just assumed that I thought honest people don’t suffer because you didn’t read about my perspective on them.
I know that it doesn’t just take drive to do something, and it’s quite insulting to think that you see me as that type of person.
I know. But where are we supposed to get information about our government if they are extremists? It’s not like all of us can sit around the Legislature…

@jerv

Yeah, that’s what we need, government intervention to force McDonald’s to pay $30/hour. That’ll solve our problems.

You keep thinking Butch, that’s what you’re good at.

Who’s “Butch”?

@BBawlight: I am confused about what you wrote about your uncle’s medical problems.

“I don’t mind the disabled, but there is quite a way to prove if someone is faking or not. My uncle (married to aforementioned aunt) gets his check in the mail like he’s supposed to, right? He gets that check because he apparently has at least 7 seizures a day now, even though before they got married, he barely had even one a year. These outrageous claims are great ways to check the reality of what they are saying.”

If it is possible that someone has multiple seizures per day, how could a welfare worker (i.e. claims examiner) reject your uncle’s application when (supposedly) a doctor had signed off on it, or multiple doctors signed off on it, testifying that your uncle has those problems? Would it not be possible that your uncle had hardly any seizures before he got married and now has seven per day? I don’t understand your point. Do you see the difficulty in trying to prove that a disability claim is false?

@Jaxk If that is what it takes to have people be able to live without government assistance, then so be it. Besides, I know you are exaggerating a bit to prove a point.

Of course, that all depends on regional costs of living, but there is a reason some places have a minimum wage higher than the federal one. But if you can live in Seattle on $15k/yr and not take a dime of taxpayer money to get medical care then show us how it’;s done. I know that after taxes, and insurance, my take-home pay is low enough that about 75% of it goes to rent, and the remaining 25% would not cover utilities. The only reason I can eat and afford luxuries is that I have a working spouse. Such is the cost of living. You have to be really well-off to be a single-income household anyplace I’ve lived, whether it’s a working spouse or a roommate.

And no, I would rather not have government force anything, but since Corporate America won’t do the right thing on their own. I would rather not pay for police either, but it’s better than having murderers and rapists run free; unlike you, I do not trust people to do the right thing. If you were correct then we would not be having this conversation; there would be no problem, and no need for things like minimum wage laws.

@BBawlight I figured as much, but I have no real knowledge of you; no idea how much you know about what, or enough to really have any idea where you are coming from. Accordingly, I have no way to know whether your posts are your actual thoughts or a misrepresentation. At least @Jaxk and I have been round-and-round enough that I have a much better idea of how he feels about things.
You seem like a smart kid. (I say “kid” since I was old enough to drink when you were born.) You seem to be perceptive, and you have already earned a bit of respect from me; not an easy task. But I had to laugh when I read, ”... you don’t know how long I have brooded over this subject and the various perspectives that come with it.” simply because I have had the same thoughts since I was half your age, so I think it safe to say that I have given it more thought than you, albeit from a different background.

I look forward to hearing more from you. Maybe in time I will have a better idea of your views. Until then, don’t take anything I say too harshly; I am just naturally cynical.

@jerv

It’s not clear how much you know about business. You have said many times that you like your job and you think very highly of your CEO. Yet you continually complain about your salary. Apparently your guy is a good guy that can’t pay very well while all other CEOs are simply greedy bastards that don’t WANT to pay very well. A pretty obscure belief system. Entry level positions are just that Entry level. Minimum wage jobs are designed for work that anyone can do. No job skills or experience required. It is a way for kids to enter the workforce or for supplemental income. It sounds like you want McDonald’s to be a career. Raising the minimum wage will only result in lower employment and higher cost of living. You’re not fixing anything but rather making things worse.

There’s an interesting study of welfare recipients. It turns out that 68% of them are not looking for work. They seem to be content to live off the welfare. That sounds like a big number to me.

@Jaxk Our company is rather small, and foundries are expensive. Same as the last job I had; the pay was meager as the profits were slim, but the non-wage benefits were great. But compare the Walmart and Costco business models to see what I am getting at; that illustrates my point better than any words I can come up with.

Not all positions we have are entry-level; we have many jobs that can be (and some would argue, are) done untrained chimps. As for my own salary, that has more to do with my job description being more detailed, the requirements being considerably higher, the demands considerably greater, and the same as the prevailing job market pays 50% more than I get. If not for the non-financial benefits of my current job, I would’ve left long ago.

However, I digress. My point is that no matter what, a person should be able to live off what their boss gives them. Maybe not well, but at least enough for a roof, a light, and a few hot meals. And if McDonalds is the only place hiring (and I know people with Masters degrees that were forced to flip burgers because that is the case more often than you will ever admit) then McDonalds has to pay a living wage as well; many people will have no choice but to make it at least a long-term resting place.

Of course, it’s a complex web because one has to balance a lot of things. For instance, if McDonalds pays more, the price of Big Macs goes up, etcetera. I am not nearly as foolish as you think; merely not well-spoken when it come to putting words to huge, complex ideas, especially not those with so many levels/facets.

Tell me though, do you honestly believe that record profits (not revenue, but what is left over after overhead, expansion, and everything) and record CEO salaries/bonuses have nothing to do with the fact that wages are flat/declining? My take is that those profits would not be nearly so good if they did what my company does; grow, create jobs, and increase overhead enough to keep profits fairly level despite the increased revenue rolling in. And if growth isn’t prudent, how about cost-of-living adjustments so that employees earn the same amount of real dollars as they did the year before?

Or you could just accelerate the Conservative agenda, tax the bottom 90% at 150% with nothing given in return, giving the top 1% carte blanche and the tax revenue collected from the bottom, and the 9% left over will become the new middle class. It worked in Europe for centuries. Your side seems to be fighting tooth and nail for it, so lets end the fighting and turn into a Third World nation, just like y’all want.

@jerv

You can’t seem to post anything without making ridiculous claims. e.g “Conservative agenda, tax the bottom 90% at 150%”. Is your argument really so flimsy that you have to make these hysterical claims to give it weight? The conservative agenda is to reduce taxes for everyone. And I for one have not agreed even with that. I personally, would like to see the tax code stabilize to give us a chance to recover.

As for the rest of your post think about who gets hurt when Walmart or Mcdonalds raises the prices. It’s certainly not Warren Buffet. So why are you hell bent on making it more difficult for lower income folks to survive? When you talk about corporate profits, you’re talking about publicly traded large international corporations. Companies like AT&T, BP, and yes Walmart. When you talk about wages, your talking about all wages which are in a large part attributable to small business. To my knowledge AT&T, BP, and yes even Walmart have not lowered wages. And keep in mind that the cost of employment is going up. Small businesses however have had to reduce employment (often by going out of business) or use part time employees. When you compare the profits of large corporations to wages, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Just for the record, my wife has not had a raise in three years now. Of course she works for my company so that may explain some of it.

If you think your company or any other company increases overhead to keep profits level, you’re delusional. That’s not why overhead increases and if your margins are getting too large, you lower prices to gain competitive advantage. Business 101.

@Jaxk You got flippant, so I figured I had license to do the same.

Now, I have a lot of thoughts in my head, and I’m not sure I have the right words to get them all out. Suffice it to say that you and I want the same things (low taxes for all, less government meddling….) yet have different ideas on how to do it.

As for comparing the business models, note that one company pays their workers more, doesn’t tell their employees how to scam Medicaid (they offer insurance that the employee pays for rather than making us taxpayers foot the doctors bills), pays the CEO less, has better profits. The other is the new normal; let the wealth trickle up.

And yes, I simplified it a bit, but are you telling me that stagnant/declining wages and cutting benefits are making it easier for working stiffs? Seems to me that all it does is drive down demand for non-essential goods/services as more people have less discretionary income.

I know that business is expensive. That is why one of my previous employers didn’t give me a raise for 5 years; they were paying more for health insurance. (They initially paid 80%, but gradually went up to 95%, keeping employee out-of-pocket cost flat. Effectively a raise though.) But I am also sure that small business would pay less if big business paid anything. I would like to see incentives to creating jobs that lead to people being able to live without government assistance; no credits for those that use Medicaid as their health insurance.

Thing is, the last few years haven’t worked out. I cannot fathom how amplifying the symptoms or some of the causes will cure the problem. Things need to change, not in the direction they have changed since this problem started, and definitely not in a direction that gives them steroids.

To be sure, it’s a balancing act, but the real issue is that some want to watch the world burn, or at least don’t care so long as they prosper. My main problem with the Conservative agenda is that it fails to differentiate between theory and reality. I don’t like idealistic delusions any more than you do.

Also, it would be nice if the private sector could fix it themselves as they have more resources of their own, and are generally more efficient and all than the government. Of course, that won’t happen since profit beats compassion, so the irony is that the government intervention that Conservatives hate so much is mandatory because of their other actions.

@jerv

I can’t address your fictional companies but a few issues seem obvious. You say you want ”(low taxes for all, less government meddling….) yet have different ideas on how to do it.” Yet the answers you give all say higher taxes and more government meddling. You can’t get less government meddling by increasing government meddling.

You also say the last few years haven’t worked yet everything you want is a continuation of what we’ve been doing the last few years. More government, more spending, higher taxes. Say it isn’t so.

The bottom line seems to be that you trust government more than business. I trust business more than government. If government gets out of the way, business will grow and prosper. The last few years of regulation and spending hasn’t solved anything and never will. Our GDP is stagnant, by definition that means that business is stagnant.

Last point. Business does best when profits are up and employees are satisfied. I know you don’t think businesses know that but they do. You say “that won’t happen since profit beats compassion”. If you want compassion, work for the peace corp. No profits, no wages but tons of compassion. Most businesses take a more balanced approach.

@Jaxk Walmart is fictional… Bank of America is too… okay, gotcha; you live in an alternate universe.

I don’t trust government one bit, so stop assuming I do. Yet I trust them more than business who has a horrific track record lately; that should tell you something! It is the same reason I don’t believe in God; if suffering exists then either there is no power to stop it, or no will to do so, the latter calling into question whether they have your best interest in mind, or just their own.

As a small business owner, you get screwed just as much as the rest of the non-elite; maybe moreso.

What I want is reform. In fact, a new framework entirely. Our system has too much cruft, too many bandaids applied by both sides, that I see no way of salvaging it. I am not nearly as anti-business as you think, but I feel that there is more to a healthy economy than just tax rates and GDP. But I am not surprised that you don’t understand that since, despite all of our dealings, you continue to underestimate my skepticism.

One thing not mentioned so far is skills. Lester C Thurow once said of globalization: “Those who have 3rd world skills will earn 3rd world wages”. McDonalds cannot sell a 3rd world item (food) for a lot of money, so cannot pay much more than 3rd world wages.

All this talk of jobs – not much is mentioned as to what kind. People unemployed or on welfare – what skills do they have? Maybe we should be re-training them while we are sending them checks. “Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.” We have been giving away too many fish.

@RocketGuy Maybe I’ve seen to many people working at McDonalds who have degrees, and some of whom used to hold high-paying jobs. Maybe I have seen to much other weird stuff like that to have quite teh same impression.

Yes, unskilled jobs like working the fryolator really don’t deserve much more than a wage sufficient for a bare-subsistence existence. But does lack of higher training mean one should starve in the streets? Is it okay for McDonalds to pass their healthcare costs on to the taxpayer?

On the flipside, they do have the right (and duty) to make a profit. I don’t think @Jaxk quite gets that I understand that. Still, there are plenty of businesses out there that have been profitable while still paying livable wages and not burdening the taxpayers with things that should be employer’s expenses. And McDonalds is really a bad example since they treat their workers fairly well, considering.

I agree that we should train people to be able to do more. The field I am in (CNC Machinist) has decent growth simply because people are retiring out and nobody has the training to replace them, leading to supply diminishing while demand is relatively high compared to the supply. There are jobs that have a shortage of qualified candidates. But that would mean either profit-reducing overhead, or more government and tax money. Therefore, I don’t see it happening; companies won’t do it, and Republicans won’t allow government to. Besides, it makes too much sense.

@jerv

I’m not sure if you’re arguing just to argue or if you’re being intentionally obtuse. I say “you trust government more than business”. Then you object and and say “I don’t trust government one bit, so stop assuming I do. Yet I trust them more than business”. Sounds like I nailed it to me.

As for the fictitious companies. You say:
“As for comparing the business models, note that one company pays their workers more, doesn’t tell their employees how to scam Medicaid (they offer insurance that the employee pays for rather than making us taxpayers foot the doctors bills), pays the CEO less, has better profits. The other is the new normal; let the wealth trickle up.”

Those are fictitious companies. You make them up then draw conclusions on them and promote solutions based on the companies you’ve just made up. The problem definition is based on your preconceived solution. You can’t solve problems that way.

A quick story here, I’ll try to keep it brief. When I was a technician, I was working a job at GM and during a break I was chatting with one of the engineers. He posed an engineering problem to me. During the assembly process a part is attached with 4 bolts. Each bolt is inserted and tightened in order but when the last bolt is inserted it some times doesn’t line up and won’t fit. How do we solve that problem. My first reaction was to simply make the last hole slightly larger. His solution was to make the first three holes slightly smaller. Tighten up on the tolerance and the last bolt will fit. A much better solution and really quite simple. I felt like a dunce but the point of the story is that you can’t find the best solution if you only focus on the last point of failure.

You complain that many college grads are working at McDonald’s and somehow that means McDonald’s should pay more. I don’t get it. I have hired more Liberal Arts degrees to sweep floors than I have High School grads. You pay for the job, not the diploma.

@Jaxk So long as you insist reality is fiction, I have no reason to suppose that you do not consider fiction to be fact. Considering how you are normally rather grounded, I find that rather disconcerting. While not all companies are bad (most aren’t) there are enough that are that any attempt to cut entitlement programs due to relatively rare fraud without calling companies out for the same sort of stuff is so disingenuous as to qualify as “full of shit”.

While you are correct about my relative degrees of trust for government and business, you appeared to vastly overestimate my trust of government, yet get belittled for attempting to clarify.

Nice story. Sounds like a typical workday to me.

While I agree that you pay for the position and not the diploma, you missed both of my points. The big one is that you just told me that certain jobs should not allow one to live. The subtler point is that improving ones self is no guarantee of any sort of improvement in quality of life.

Since you still don’t get me even after all this time, and seem to think that you know enough about business that anybody with views (or even experiences) that differ from yours are ignorant Socialist drivel, I think I’ll just walk away from this, and try to avoid future discussion of this nature with you. I like you, and I want to keep it that way, but these things rarely end well.

@jerv Alright. You seem like a good person and hope to converse with you some more some time… And thanks for the nice stuff you said, my self-confidence hasn’t been of it’s highest as of late so I could really use that boost… Haha I know you’re older than me by a while, it’s quite obvious, really, but I hope that doesn’t influence any opinion you have of me I’m not very fond of people assuming how I am because of my age.

To really understand where people are on this one would have to see the movie 2016. This will give you a picture of what it is that a lot of people know about Obama.

What this movie gives is information about Obama and how his dream is about allowing his fathers dream to come to fruition. The general idea of the movie suggests Obama does not like the power that America wields over countries. It suggests Obama wants to take down America , through ecconomic collapse, by spending us into oblivion. There is a you tube from his college days where he says in his own words about the first thing he wants to do is to get rid of the dollar, and collapse it.

But to be fair its not just Obama its both sides of the ailse who are propping up more and more govermental control, started under Bush with the Patriot Act, and the major violations of the constitution but continued under Obama. The super rich are wanting more control, and use both parties for there ultimate goal of more control of the masses. The Health Care Bill that was passed is for control , and does nothing to control the costs , just puts more people under the control of the goverment. The major bank bailouts did nothing but put more money into the hands of the super rich, but the continued effects of spending without a budget, puts us at further risk of being downsized yet again. And now Germany is losing faith in the Federal Reserve is pulling its gold assets out of it. We are witnessing and will continue to witness the collapse of the dollar, and this is what the super rich want.

What people are concerned about is the real goals and agenda and the playing of the not haves against the haves, which is just a ploy being used to further the agenda of the communist agenda, of ultimate govermental control of the people.

@android777 Thank you for that explanation. Few people here are willing to put their paranoia on display, which was the whole point of the question. It sounds like you are saying that the communists and the superrich are somehow cooperating with each other to gain government control over the masses. Is this what you are saying?

The US is wasting $$$$ trying to be the strongest country in the world and police the countries in it. Cutting that portion of govt spending is a good thing.