patrick.net

Yes that is true. It seems we as people are only blaming the .01%, and no one is noting that the politicians are to blame. They should resist temptation and vow to do what is good for the people they serve, rather than their pockets. I wish we were focused solely on occupying the white house, and not just wall street.

nw888 says

I'm part of the 1%

Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical, but often "successful" persons overestimate what % they are in, and how government/tax reforms would effect them.

Joe the plumber is a great example of this.

nw888 says

I pay a lot of taxes each year.

Well, clearly you don't pay Romney's tax rate.

nw888 says

On top of that, people hate me for being one of the "greedy" 1% jerks that is making this country horrible...

...But because I've been so "lucky" to give all that up to make money, I'm vilified by the 99%, and I "owe" them more of my money.

The 99% does not "hate" -- or you for that matter -- the 1%, they just want to be given the same level of opportunity that past generations has been given. Social mobility and wealth distribution over the past 40 years clearly shows that opportunity is a thing of the past.

If you are paying so much in taxes it is likely that you are doing productive work. Romney gets his taxes low through rent seeking unproductive activities (numerous other threads discuss this). Any tax reforms are unlikely to affect your income.

Also, people tend to vastly underestimate the level of luck that was required to achieve their financial success. Many people will work 80/hrs a week and do all the "right" things, but success never "clicks" for them.

nw888 says

Yes that is true. It seems we as people are only blaming the .01%, and no one is noting that the politicians are to blame. They should resist temptation and vow to do what is good for the people they serve, rather than their pockets. I wish we were focused solely on occupying the white house, and not just wall street.

Well... the politicians themselves are more often than not in the 0.01%.

But, they are doing what is good for the people they serve. They serve the people who finance their campaigns, pay for SuperPacs and give them jobs after they leave office.

What we need is publicly financed campaigns to get the special interests out of politics.

That's fine to be skeptical. No worries. What any of us makes doesn't really matter in the overall discussion. I'm technically in the 1%, albeit the bottom.

But who cares. Big deal. My wife still gets mad at me over dumb stuff and I still have to take out the trash once a week.

From what I see in the Occupy movement, people are blaming "rich" people, or people that have more than them. If they want more opportunities, then they need to start protesting solely in front of the White House, because Obama and the presidents before him are slowly eroding the purchasing power of our dollars to the point that one day we will all be in the poor house.

leoj707 says

What we need is publicly financed campaigns to get the special interests out of politics.

I agree. You're right on.

nw888 says

From what I see in the Occupy movement, people are blaming "rich" people, or people that have more than them. If they want more opportunities, then they need to start protesting solely in front of the White House, because Obama and the presidents before him are slowly eroding the purchasing power of our dollars to the point that one day we will all be in the poor house.

Well... I agree that not all "rich" people, or even all of the 0.01% are too blame, but the "rich" are the ones who have been behind the policy changes for the 40 year that got us to where we are today.

Sure, the politicians should be held to task, but should not also their masters?

I believe that they are protesting on Wall Street as a message that they understand who the politicians bosses are.

Why solely the White House? There should be protests at every senator and congressman's office. Unfortunately the occupy movement does not have the manpower to protest everywhere they should be.

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease

I've been thinking about this. Since it is preventable and a decision (usually), then why even have it be covered under insurance at all? You chose to have children. Why should the childless be forced to pay higher premiums to cover your decisions?

And it could be a moral decision--like there are too many F%$^*(*^ people already, consuming too many resources.

In other words, a decision to breed is no different than a decision NOT to.

I'm in full agreement with you. I just hope the rest of the nation is aware of who's to blame.

Interesting view on why they're protesting at Wall Street. I never looked at it like that!

The White House to me is the top of the government food chain, so in protesting the government we should be at the top. I would rather see us protesting the government more, because the government works for all of us, and wall street does not. Wall street can be greedy and try to buy politicians, but ultimately it is the decision by the government to allow itself to be bought that is the problem. Our politicians should have more integrity, and we as people should be demanding it.

It's also just too bad that people end up taking sides, and blaming either Republicans or Democrats.

I want politicians to have integrity and stand behind their word. I want them to start doing their job of serving the masses to create a great place for human beings to exist and thrive. Time will tell!

Good discussion!

Unfortunately, even if one fights the machine, he (or she) is instantly pilloried by the right as antagonistic to business, campaign funding dries up, the media mocks them as loony, etc.

Not to mention all the hyper-power players who will beat any hint of upsetting the apple cart out of you.

And even if you do get through that gauntlet, integrity intact, you still have the prize of a thankless, stupid electorate waiting for you.

@gregfielding

Thank you for your input. I am back in California so I am able to talk to people directly now...

I have actually voted Republican in the past, but not in the last decade...I may never again...

@eightball

>Any answer will have the person drawn and quartered in this forum. You and a slew of others are just waiting to pounce.

Many may pounce but I will at least listen (read) and so will a number of others, if a good argument is made.

American in Japan says

I have actually voted Republican in the past, but not in the last decade...I may never again...

Yeah, I am in the same boat.

CL says

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease

I've been thinking about this. Since it is preventable and a decision (usually), then why even have it be covered under insurance at all? You chose to have children. Why should the childless be forced to pay higher premiums to cover your decisions?

And it could be a moral decision--like there are too many F%$^*(*^ people already, consuming too many resources.

In other words, a decision to breed is no different than a decision NOT to.

If I remember correctly, I had an option to reduce a premium with one company and not receive "birth" coverage (for lack of a better term). That would make sense for someone that 1) can't get pregnant or 2) is male and single or 3) someone makes a decision that they aren't going/make the decision to not get pregnant. Government mandates will do away with this "choice" and place you in the exact situation that you are pondering. Obviously there was a need in the market and the market responded. Getting into the minutia and tinkering with details the government obviates the ability of the market to fulfill this desire.

There is certainly a grey area here but if we error on the side of freedom I'd rather have those warts. Employers more than likely cover a birth and contraception because it is part of a benefit they are providing that they think is mutually beneficial. Once the government comes in and starts taking over it is no longer a benefit - it is a mandate. Basic human nature will drive people/companies to only cover just the minimum which will be defined by an ivory tower type far off in Washington. Whether or not a religious institution is forced to pay for something contrary to their beliefs is a debate that simply magnifies the problem with the federal government governing by fiat - nothing good can come from it.

I do think government being involved in SOME capacity it is good because they are the only entity that has the power to do so. An example of this is an insurance carrier dropping an individual because they get sick which is the whole purpose of the person purchasing or receiving the insurance. It's just plain wrong that someone pays for insurance and the company rolls the dice (they want everyone to be healthy after all and not have to pay out any benefits right?) and renege on their end of the contract. Same thing goes for when people move between jobs and potentially don't get coverage because they already have an ailment. This, however, is more of an issue of regulating and enforcing standards in contracts which the government already does and should do. I think a lot of this could be solved by having coverage follow the individual and not where they work. Single payer achieves this but the federal government has proven time and again that they can't stop sticking their finger in the middle of everything and they are very inefficient to boot. Couple that with what has happened with the HHS mandate and it is a recipe for tyranny and mass corruption.

The current debate is one thing - but what happens when they decide that everyone needs a gym membership or a special interest gets their way for them to mandate coverage for X over Y effectively putting Y out of business? The fact that the law is set up that they CAN do this sort of thing is troubling to me (as demonstrated by their contraception mandate). For me it is beyond just the religious issue. If we WANT socialized medicine and healthcare (which I don't believe is enumerated in the constitution) we need to go ahead and amend it - isn't this exactly the purpose of the amendment process? I'm not saying we SHOULD do that as I obviously disagree with it but that would be the proper way to do it. Ramming it through congress with backroom deals and granting power to unelected bureaucrats just seems un-American.

leoj707 says

What we need is publicly financed campaigns to get the special interests out of politics.

Strongly agree, but wouldn't money still change hands "under the table"? It might be hard to enforce.
McCain-Feingold was supposed to reign in some of the influence of $ on politics. Is it working?

Still, I agree it's worth a try.

kentm says

CL says

I've been thinking about this. Since it is preventable and a decision (usually), then why even have it be covered under insurance at all?

WTF!

At the risk of getting banned by Patrick it's worth it for me to say just this to you, which is the best response I can muster for a statement like that: you're a fucking idiot.

There's no need to be rude. Come on now.

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations. Elective surgeries such as cosmetic ones aren't covered, so one can deduce that having a child is usually an elective decision that people make. Therefore it wouldn't be covered by insurance, thus lowering premiums. Makes sense.

nw888 says

There's no need to be rude. Come on now.

I agree.

nw888 says

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations.

True, but even simple preventative medicine can be expensive enough to need insurance in order to cover the "financial emergency".

And, skipping preventative stuff leads to more expensive medical emergencies down the road.

nw888 says

Elective surgeries such as cosmetic ones aren't covered, so one can deduce that having a child is usually an elective decision that people make. Therefore it wouldn't be covered by insurance, thus lowering premiums. Makes sense.

The human condition is such that while for individuals pregnancy can be a choice as a species it is not. We can guarantee that people will get pregnant. As a species we don't need cosmetic surgery, and can get along quite fine without it. Our most base primal drive is that we need to make babies. Just like we need to go outside. We don't have to expose ourselves to the sun, it is very avoidable these days, just as technology makes pregnancy avoidable. We choose to expose ourselves to the sun, and as a result some people get skin cancer.

Pregnancy can actually be very dangerous, and medical coverage helps to prevent complications.

Pregnancy is not as much of a "choice" than some may think.

1. The sexual drive is very strong. We are born with this addiction, and this addiction can often override our "better judgement".

2. Many women around the world -- yes even in the US -- are reliant on their husbands/partners for: food, clothing, and shelter. Skipping sex for these women is not an option.

For all women education and access to contraception makes pregnancy more of a choice. Medical coverage can grant the access to education and contraception.

wthrfrk80 says

McCain-Feingold was supposed to reign in some of the influence of $ on politics. Is it working?

The Citizens United ruling has made it impossible to reign in the influence of $ in politics.

wthrfrk80 says

Strongly agree, but wouldn't money still change hands "under the table"? It might be hard to enforce.

Yes, there will always be some level of crime and corruption, but that does not mean we should give up. Some systems are more prone to corruption than others. Historically the US has been pretty low on the corruption scale, but over the past decades our system has been evolving into one that facilitates/encourages corruption.

wthrfrk80 says

Still, I agree it's worth a try.

Yeah, it has much better promise than the direction we are currently going.

nw888 says

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations.

This type of thinking is one of the reasons health care costs have skyrocketed. Far, far cheaper to prevent and or control many conditions before they reach the emergency stage. An emphasis on preventative care with no co pays is something nearly everyone agrees will both lower costs and lower suffering. The revised Obama reg. now putting the cost of birth control on the insurance companies has gotten no blow back from the insurance companies as it saves them money by preventing pregnancies.

While for many a 20 dollar co pay for a test or 500 a year for birth control may seem a small amount of money for the working poor it is not.

nw888 says

There's no need to be rude. Come on now.

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations. Elective surgeries such as cosmetic ones aren't covered, so one can deduce that having a child is usually an elective decision that people make. Therefore it wouldn't be covered by insurance, thus lowering premiums. Makes sense.

And my point was to illustrate how one man's elective is another person's reason for holding the policy. Employers should not dictate the morality of the medical care you need.

(Thanks for the thoughtful and cogent reply, Eightball. I have other comments, but I'll take them to healthcare/insurance now).

Akki,

Are you sure you're not Cloud?

wthrfrk80 says

It's not people like you that are the problem. It's the top 0.1% or 0.01% that have enough money to buy politicians (e.g. the Koch brothers).

OY my Goddamn BALLS!!!

Then nothing will never change, the Voters were told there wouldn't be any Math, just names to pick from.

If you're going to obscure the real problem with a number you folks randomly pulled out of your Ass, then were screwed. How do you quantify the percentage the Koch brothers are in? What did they do? We need some goddamn details, if were going to light this torch puppy and rabble crowd to the court house steps.
That one percent, of one percent of the top one thousandth, will just confuse this lot and send them to the nearest exit.

leoj707 says

The Citizens United ruling has made it impossible to reign in the influence of $ in politics.

True.

I can't believe where this country is headed.

Can we please get a "New Deal" style Democrat to run for office? One that stays away from "social issues"? One that doesn't threaten the Religious Right? The only reason the Republicans win elections is because of the Religious Right. Fear is a powerful motivator. And what drives the Religious Right is the fear that their culture is under attack.

It works wonderfully for the ruling 0.1%.

But of course, the Democrats won't compromise on social issues either. Legal abortion and gay marriage are as sacred to the "New Left" as Christian morality is to the Religious Right.

So the top 0.1% just keep getting more and more powerful.

Eventually, both the New Left and Religious Right will be toiling in the fields and mines together, under the rule of the top 0.1%. Only then will both cultures integrate and possibly unite against their overlords.

wthrfrk80 says

Can we please get a "New Deal" style Democrat to run for office?

I'll settle for a Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.
I'll settle for any party that's the real deal.

wthrfrk80 says

The only reason the Republicans win elections is because of the Religious Right.

Ask any Church goer of any denomination, how's attendance.
Now you suppose that there are so many church going Christians left in this country that can decide the presidential election, then your dreaming the Popes dream.

The GOP says

Ask any Church goer of any denomination, how's attendance.
Now you suppose that there are so many church going Christians left in this country that can decide the presidential election, then your dreaming the Popes dream.

The Religious Right is an important voting bloc of the Republican Party, is it not? I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I don't think the Religious Right has given up yet.

The GOP says

I'll settle for a Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.
I'll settle for any party that's the real deal.

The best Republicans have been the liberal Republicans!

wthrfrk80 says

The Religious Right is an important voting bloc of the Republican Party, is it not? I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I don't think the Religious Right has given up yet.

Perhaps, but that lot isn't singlehandedly winning anyone elections.
Just like teachers alone didn't win Obama the presidency either.

" I don't think the Religious Right has given up yet."

Yeah, I don't think they'll ever vote for the party that calls them stupid for being religious, then goes to temple on Saturday.

What about the Jews, could there ever be another Democrat president with out them? Well probably not, but not because losing that group. But because they own the production company, and the podium with the flattering backdrop. They also own the network that will blitz that image 24/7 until election day.

If the Christian right were ever that powerful, then jacking off wile watching Ferris Beuller would be a capitol offense in this country.

The problem with the GOP (voter) is that they don't know what they want or what they stand for, or how they want to play this election.

A referendum on Obama? Electability? Exciting the base? True, hard-right conservative?

But again, they could have a Republican in liberal clothing, a la Clinton and they don't even know that they've WON the ideological struggle in many cases. Clinton didn't cozy up to Wall Street because it had been a long held DEMOCRATIC goal; it was because the Republicans had won over that bloc and the DLC couldn't see a way to win without it. Be "business friendly!!"

Die-hard liberals were outraged, and Unions were crushed with the passing of NAFTA. Welfare-to-work was passed, ending welfare as we know it. On and on it goes, as the country drifts ever rightward.

Point is, they don't have ideological markers to know when they should celebrate. That makes selecting a candidate this year into an odd Rorschach test into the psyche of the collective Republican brain--and they have issues.

The GOP says

What about the Jews, could there ever be another Democrat president with out them? Well probably not, but not because losing that group.

Democrats win over nearly every large ethnic minority in this country, and by wide-margins typically. The GOP had the Arab/Muslim vote prior to 9/11 but I suspect it drifted over to the left after constant assault by Republican figures for 8-10 years.

I like to believe that it's because the Jewish voter, as well as other minorities, know oppression well. In this country, it is in the nearly all-white face of the GOP, demographically speaking that is.

CL says

know oppression well. In this country, it is in the nearly all-white face of the GOP, demographically speaking that is.

Oh yeah because Scooter over at Napa Auto parts counter is just so damn important in your day to day decisions. Scooter and Buba are the puppet masters in this country, and practically own the banks and media.

When was the last time you saw a small business Jim Smith owns, get ahead?
When was the last time Earl Earp had any political clout in local politics, or local chamber of commerce?

You know you Liberals are big on deciding who is smart and who the Idiots are. And it just kills you, when those Idiots get the job. Well guess what, they got a degree, or not but they studies in industry related Shit, they didn't get a doctor degree in aboriginal penis sheaths.

Are you implying that European non-Jews have a disadvantage over Jews? If so, I think you have illustrated why the GOP does not get the Jewish vote. Now do African-Americans and Latinos!

In any case, Democrats do not win the plurality of the white vote either. Why do you think that is?

nw888 says

kentm says

CL says

I've been thinking about this. Since it is preventable and a decision (usually), then why even have it be covered under insurance at all?

WTF!

At the risk of getting banned by Patrick it's worth it for me to say just this to you, which is the best response I can muster for a statement like that: you're a fucking idiot.

There's no need to be rude. Come on now.

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations. Elective surgeries such as cosmetic ones aren't covered, so one can deduce that having a child is usually an elective decision that people make. Therefore it wouldn't be covered by insurance, thus lowering premiums. Makes sense.

There is sometimes need to be rude. God you guys depress me. So leaving aside the whole women's rights issues a comment like that raises, that's supposedly your standard of what should be covered by healthcare, that only emergency occurrences unforseen and unexpected are worthy of healthcare? So what about driving? Driving is an electable action. Would anyone injured in an auto accident be refused care because they might have instead chosen to walk? What about smokers? Smoking is a choice, shoulPd anyone who comes down with lung cancer be denied because they might have smoked at one point? Or might have chosen not to? What about falls while walking? They might have chosen to drive instead, oh wait...

Okay, here's a question for you: Why don't you just completey lower your premiums by completely opting right out of the healthcare system? Just pay for yourself, only what you personally need, when you need it? That way your own costs would be only your own and you wouldn't have to fret that your money is supporting some freeloader somewhere. I've seen that idea bumped about a few times recently, so why not do that?

Patrick, if you're going to delete comments you should at least be decent enough to send a note or leave a notice.

EDIT: I guess this is the start of the healthcare portion of this thread:

EightBall says

Don't what to get pregnant? Stop having sex, buy some condoms, or go buy the pill. I don't see where a simple religious conscience clause is that controversial. Pregnancy is not a disease...

This is where all this Crazy ass talk about healthcare started in this thread I think.

So you really prefer to kill an entire healthcare bill over this one tiny issue, that someone somewhere MIGHT possibly buy a contraceptive? THAT was your flashpoint for wanting to kill the entire universal healthcare effort, that if enacted would have been substantially beneficial to many people and would have changed many many people's lives in really quite positive ways? Wow. And I suppose you acted this way because some Christian leader told you this was the "moral" decision to make?

I fear a court packed with Kagans and Ginsburgs. I don't always agree with the right wing justices but I'll take Citizens United if we never have another Terri Schiavo.

You fear the potential future influence of a couple of centrist right leaning judges - who both just happen to be women, coincidence I'm sure - over what is generally considered to be one of the most controversial and damaging legal changes to US elections and policy framework in the history of the country? Wow, man.

Honestly, do you have any sense of just how warped your sense of morality and proportion is at this point? I really don't know any more pleasant way to ask that question in the context of what you're writing in this thread.

kentm says

So you really prefer to kill an entire healthcare bill over this one tiny issue, that someone somewhere MIGHT possibly buy a contraceptive?

No, I'm saying that the fact that they can mandate this that they can mandate just about anything. This is not a tiny issue. In the greater context of things allowing a small group of individuals to mandate their priorities with little to no oversight (other than populist outrage) is the problem. The fact that this even came up at this point (this could have been buried for years) should make everyone step back and ask this question: Why are we giving such a small group of people carte blanche? Is this not extending the ability to "legislate" to non-legislators? Is this the right solution to our problem?

kentm says

And I suppose you acted this way because some Christian leader told you this was the "moral" decision to make?

I don't need a Christian leader to point out the obvious. Whether you are religious or not, everyone understands the meaning of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I don't think we need to kill the entire universal healthcare effort but I don't think giving up liberty is necessary to achieve it. I am guessing that we disagree that the current law is ceding our rights and freedoms to a small cabal that today is left-leaning - next year perhaps it is right-leaning. What will it be 20 years from now? 40 years from now? As I've stated before, the Democrats had their chance and they completely and utterly blew it. Their failure may actually do the opposite of their intentions - kill any universal health care effort for a generation.

kentm says

You fear the potential future influence of a couple of centrist right leaning judges - who both just happen to be women, coincidence I'm sure - over what is generally considered to be one of the most controversial and damaging legal changes to US elections and policy framework in the history of the country? Wow, man.

The fact that they are women has nothing to do with this as you duly noted. I find it difficult to understand that anyone would think they were centrist or right leaning. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective or what one thinks the constitution is or isn't. There is a mechanism for amending the constitution (or filling the holes where it is either unclear or circumstances were unforseen) and as far as I know it does not involve packing the court with lefties or righties in order to get it done.

As far as fear goes, I'm sure there were some (possibly you) that feared that a right-leaning court would produce Citizens United - the fear was certainly justified. Why are my fears completely unfounded? Do I need to wait until it is too late before I'm told "yeah, you were right"?

kentm says

Honestly, do you have any sense of just how warped your sense of morality and proportion is at this point? I really don't know any more pleasant way to ask that question in the context of what you're writing in this thread.

Thank you for not being unpleasant. Perhaps my example was a little glib comparing the ramifications of the recent court decision with a single instance of a travesty years ago. My point, however, is that there are only two choices and often one must weigh the lesser or two evils and even with my bad example you likely understand why I would make one choice over the other.

The further the democrats continue their march left and the high-speed sprint the republicans have made to the right is leaving a gaping hole in the middle. We can only hope that something organic develops in this void as this is where most people's reality exists - but I'm not holding my breath that's for sure.

EightBall says

The further the democrats continue their march left and the high-speed sprint the republicans have made to the right is leaving a gaping hole in the middle. We can only hope that something organic develops in this void as this is where most people's reality exists - but I'm not holding my breath that's for sure.

So true. I was a Republican, but they've gone to the extreme right. Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are borderline theocrats. So is Santorum.

And I don't really care for the Democrats, the party of "limousine liberals" so out of touch with much of the country. Why isn't Obama restoring some kind of "rule of law" in the financial industry? The Democrats are supposed to be the party that stands up to Big Business and Big Money.

I really am losing faith in the USA.

EightBall says

We can only hope that something organic develops in this void as this is where most people's reality exists - but I'm not holding my breath that's for sure.

We need a push for Party independence, in this country. Every voter has unequivocal rights, as long as your are affiliated with one of the two parties. Independent Voters, are treated no more fairly in this country, than in a dictatorship country where the Political Head holds elections for the illusion of Democracy.

CL says

I think you have illustrated why the GOP does not get the Jewish vote.

You're wrong. GOP gets a lot of Jewish votes. Bush won Florida in 2004 precisely because of Jewish votes. Rabbies went thru Jewish nursing homes and care centers agitating old Jewish voters to vote for Bush, because he is "good for Israel". (Not only in Florida).

In 2008 tons of e-mails to American voters with any Jewish connection were sent from Israel asking to vote against Obama.

nw888 says

That's fine to be skeptical. No worries. What any of us makes doesn't really matter in the overall discussion. I'm technically in the 1%, albeit the bottom.

Look I don't know where you are, but just so you are aware, the top 1% has a net worth above $5M with annual income above $400k.

Just want you to know where the cutoffs were. if you are there then that is great.

I doubt you made it there without some sort of help from the government or generational wealth transfer based on the statistics, but if not, wow, you are one of the very few in that group.

But I can tell you this: You owe more to your government for the protection of the wealth you have amassed than everyone below you on the socioeconomic scale. Because that government is the only thing between you and having it all taken by force.

What I am saying is this: all of the freedoms we have as Americans really only benefit those who has the ability to exercise them. If your primary concern is how you are going to get your next meal, then it really doesn't matter to you if you have free speech or can vote.

That is, if you are in the bottom 30% barely making it by, do you care if this country is invaded and taken over by China? If that happens you are still poor, now you are just joined by all the former rich guys who really lost something.

The government doesnt keep all of us free, because the poor really are not free. Our government protects the freedoms and rights of the wealthy...the only citizens that have anything to protect in the first place. If you dont have anything there is nothing to protect.

So yes, those who benefit most from having a government should pay the most for it. You pay a lot in taxes and i thank you for that. You just need to understand you get more than 99% from the government too.

david1 says

But I can tell you this: You owe more to your government for the protection of the wealth you have amassed than everyone below you on the socioeconomic scale. Because that government is the only thing between you and having it all taken by force.

Very true. For example, the government protects folks like Huntingdon Moneyworth III from folks like Apocalypsefuck.

david1 says

I doubt you made it there without some sort of help from the government or generational wealth transfer based on the statistics, but if not, wow, you are one of the very few in that group.

I've made it by working smart and working hard. No hand outs from mommy and daddy (who are not rich btw). Or the government for that matter.

david1 says

But I can tell you this: You owe more to your government for the protection of the wealth you have amassed than everyone below you on the socioeconomic scale. Because that government is the only thing between you and having it all taken by force.

I'm fine with paying more in taxes, but if I owe more, than I expect the government to give me perks. I want a front of the line pass to the DMV and the post office! AND they have to be polite to me!! (This is of course in jest, but seriously that would be nice wouldn't it?)

The real problem is what the government does with the money. They hand it out to people milking the welfare system and spend it on blowing up people over oil. The government needs to toughen this entitled country up.

In china people work hard because they don't have a fall back. No one will help them out, and if they're lazy they starve and die.

Why is working hard and not being an entitled trust fund kid of the government such a hard pill to swallow?

nw888 says

In china people work hard because they don't have a fall back. No one will help them out, and if they're lazy they starve and die.

People who work hard in China still starve to death; people also commit suicide because the working conditions are so deplorable and they have no alternative, but to starve.

nw888 says

Why is working hard and not being an entitled trust fund kid of the government such a hard pill to swallow?

It is not but in the US today, as mentioned by david1, upward mobility is rare. Currently the US has lower class mobility than other industrialized countries and this is not because people in the US are inherently more "lazy". Some systems facilitate upward mobility and some inhibit it; we are moving to a system that inhibits class mobility.

True, in China there are deep problems, and they are only barely seeing the beginning of increases wages in some areas. As a people, they work hard, and I am inclined to say much harder, because survival is on their mind.

I think people in the US have many opportunities to make it today. Everyone one of us is truly lucky to be born in a nation where we have choices. Imagine being born in Africa or China in some remote location, where you will never be able to live out your dreams.

Yes, the US is heading downwards, but at the same time, I see entitlement and laziness every day. It' in my family, some of my friends, my wife's family and friends...It's all around. There is a problem in this country, and while many people work very hard, there are many people that are used to "getting by", with the help of the government (taxpayer) of course. These people can get out and hustle more than they do to get off unemployment, or put in the extra days and nights to take their career to the next level. They don't, and they complain about how miserable their life is because they can't afford this and that. They're lucky, and they don't even know it.

I will say this: I am so fortunate and lucky to have been born in a country where I have opportunities. Without that luck, I would NEVER be where I am today.

I think that a lot of people in this country take their luck for granted.

nw888 says

Why is working hard and not being an entitled trust fund kid of the government such a hard pill to swallow?

It isn't at all. However, I find it absolutely hard to believe that you are a self made part of the 1% without any help from the government. The government is such a large % of overall economic activity that it is hard to believe. You mentioned being business owner.

1. You have no government (state, local, federal) contracts?
2. None of your customers receive any type of government assistance (FHA construction loans, SBA business loans, general public welfare, etc.)
3. The services you provide are not regulated by the government (medicine, law, telecom, etc?) Barriers similar to those in these industries prevent commodization of services.
4. You have no government protected intellectual property rights?
5. You access no public highways in the course of doing business?
6. None of your employees are eligible for the EIC?

If you can honestly answer yes to the above questions, that would be something I would love to know more about. What you would be saying is that you have a business that has a low barrier of entry, affluent-only customers, little red tape, no transportation requirements, no innovation or invention requirements, and skilled employees.

I would guess your skilled employees (who all attended private schools without federal student loans) would simply break off from your business and start their own if there really was no barrier to entry though...

If all of those are true though, please let me know what your business does!! I am very interested in purchasing franchise rights.