Oh that poor poor lady! I wonder if there is an address we can all send donations? LOL! Seriously, I almost wet my pants reading this... this woman is an idiot and sadly I think she is raising more idiots that will be no better at managing money and know even less about sacrifice.
Squeaking by on $300,000 I'm sure after reading this, everyone will have a better appreciation of just how hard it is to live on $300k a year in America.
This woman and her family seem to be at their wit's end trying to make ends meet with all their daily household bills just surviving.
I'm sure some of you that make less than $100k a year should realize that not only you are hurting, and that people like this exist and they barely have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
No compassion for these folks. I know they earn their money. I've been at that pay grade and I know it's tough.
I also know it's very easy to minimize costs.
They too need to scale back their spending as well as try and reduce their bills like the rest of us. I know it is hard on everyone but in this case it's a matter of people thinking the economy wouldn't hurt their bracket.
"Upper Scale" that is.
These people can't complain in my opinion, not justified. There are people living in cars,tents,etc. These jackasses are complaining they can't keep up with the bills for their decent/cookie cutter dev home/HDTV/BLAHBLAHBLAH?
The point I am trying to emphasis, however, is that I want those opportunities to be available for all Americans. First generation, second generation, and so on and so forth. We have enormous income-inequality today because Sixpacks and Plumbers want that (see, e.g., Sam the Plumber talk about how he plans to "get rich" by buying a business with money he does not and never will have). It is a dream -better described as a fantasy- that people are going to "get rich." It is why, my theory goes, people are inclined to support public policies that are not in their best interests; i.e., they anticipate, some day, in the future, to be the beneficiary of those public policies ("death tax!" or "socialism!" or "medicare queen!").
People with money are not necessarily any better or smarter than anyone else. I come from a family of entrepreneurs. I started my first company was a sophmore in college; my brother owns several businesses; and my dad owns several businesses. Nevertheless, the point is simple: we need to re-create the middle-class through public policies, beginning with universal health care to reduce the costs on individuals and companies. Reduce the frequencies of bankruptcies. Increase the quality of health care provided. Expand coverage and accessibility (such as reductions in wait times).
The middle-class are basically those individuals who had to work very hard to acquire and then work very hard to keep their profession and income (doctors, partners at law firms, business executives, mid-sized business owners, metallurgists, certain corporate scientists/researchers, productive authors, and so forth). The middle-class is a minority. We need to re-create the middle-class by elevating the lower middle-class through wage insurance, universal health care, taxes, and so forth. We need to mitigate income-inequality, or we will lose our middle-class through taxes, bankruptcies, foreclosures, health care costs, tuition costs, energy costs, and so forth. We cannot squeeze them anymore; we need to secure them.
EDIT: The difference between the middle-class and upper middle-class is more or less 100,000 in income; many middle-class individuals struggle to maintain an upper middle-class lifestyle.
The point I am trying to emphasis, however, is that I want those opportunities to be available for all Americans. First generation, second generation, and so on and so forth. We have enormous income-inequality today because Sixpacks and Plumbers want that (see, e.g., Sam the Plumber talk about how he plans to "get rich" by buying a business with money he does not and never will have). It is a dream -better described as a fantasy- that people are going to "get rich." It is why, my theory goes, people are inclined to support public policies that are not in their best interests; i.e., they anticipate, some day, in the future, to be the beneficiary of those public policies ("death tax!" or "socialism!" or "medicare queen!").
People with money are not necessarily any better or smarter than anyone else. I come from a family of entrepreneurs. I started my first company was a sophmore in college; my brother owns several businesses; and my dad owns several businesses. Nevertheless, the point is simple: we need to re-create the middle-class through public policies, beginning with universal health care to reduce the costs on individuals and companies. Reduce the frequencies of bankruptcies. Increase the quality of health care provided. Expand coverage and accessibility (such as reductions in wait times).
The middle-class are basically those individuals who had to work very hard to acquire and then work very hard to keep their profession and income (doctors, partners at law firms, business executives, mid-sized business owners, metallurgists, certain corporate scientists/researchers, productive authors, and so forth). The middle-class is a minority. We need to re-create the middle-class by elevating the lower middle-class through wage insurance, universal health care, taxes, and so forth. We need to mitigate income-inequality, or we will lose our middle-class through taxes, bankruptcies, foreclosures, health care costs, tuition costs, energy costs, and so forth. We cannot squeeze them anymore; we need to secure them.
EDIT: The difference between the middle-class and upper middle-class is more or less 100,000 in income; many middle-class individuals struggle to maintain an upper middle-class lifestyle.
So who instead are you going to squeeze to secure the money to elevate the lower-class? Gonna try and level the playing field and make sure everyone has the same amount of money?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
So who instead are you going to squeeze to secure the money to elevate the lower-class? Gonna try and level the playing field and make sure everyone has the same amount of money?
In order to mitigate income-inequality we will need to raise taxes on the upper middle-class (incomes from 250k to 500k per annum) and the wealthy (increased taxes on assets such as insurance proceeds, offshore accounts, capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties, and so forth).
We need to reduce taxes on the middle class (250k and under) and below. We need to ensure that affordable, accessible, and quality health care is provide; the best way to achieve this is through a public option. We also need to institute wage insurance to ensure when we enter these Great Recessions that computer programmers, e.g., do not go from 89,000 a year to making 300 bucks a month.
So who instead are you going to squeeze to secure the money to elevate the lower-class? Gonna try and level the playing field and make sure everyone has the same amount of money?
In order to mitigate income-inequality we will need to raise taxes on the upper middle-class (incomes from 250k to 500k per annum) and the wealthy (increased taxes on assets such as insurance proceeds, offshore accounts, capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties, and so forth).
We need to reduce taxes on the middle class (250k and under) and below. We need to ensure that affordable, accessible, and quality health care is provide; the best way to achieve this is through a public option. We also need to institute wage insurance to ensure when we enter these Great Recessions that computer programmers, e.g., do not go from 89,000 a year to making 300 bucks a month.
We can do this. Yes. We can.
Wow. Tax the rich and feed the poor huh?
Wage insurance is a plan for failure. You seriously expect that in times where it cannot be justified to pay someone a certain salary, that your gonna either force employers to pay that or insurance companies to pay it? What kind of economic fairy world do you want to try and achieve here?
Are you just pulling my chain, this a big ole case of sarcasm? Come on, you can be straight with me.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
I am telling you that there are market forces beyond your control. You may find yourself without a job, and without a job you will find yourself (a) without income and (b) without health insurance.
Wage insurance and universal health care mitigate the effects of your jobless.
Originally posted by declaredemer In order to mitigate income-inequality we will need to raise taxes on the upper middle-class (incomes from 250k to 500k per annum) and the wealthy (increased taxes on assets such as insurance proceeds, offshore accounts, capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties, and so forth).
We need to reduce taxes on the middle class (250k and under) and below. We need to ensure that affordable, accessible, and quality health care is provide; the best way to achieve this is through a public option. We also need to institute wage insurance to ensure when we enter these Great Recessions that computer programmers, e.g., do not go from 89,000 a year to making 300 bucks a month.
We can do this. Yes. We can. Nice stealing the campaign slogan from Obama who actually stole it from Bob the Builder.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
I am telling you that there are market forces beyond your control. You may find yourself without a job, and without a job you will find yourself (a) without income and (b) without health insurance.
Wage insurance and universal health care mitigate the effects of your jobless.
I do not think that wage insurance is a good idea because although I may be layed off and the insurance company can pay for me, what happens when 5000 people get layed off? How will the company pay for that?
Is wage insurance going to be public or privately run? If public, who will pay for it? Is this not just another version of well fare of un-employment? If private sure, go ahead and pay those premiums. But I'm gonna laugh and walk on by when you when you find out your insurance company cannot afford to pay because 5000 other people are asking for free money too. I wont help you because you decided to put your money into a system that has serious risks instead of saving your money and being prudent about your spending habits.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are.
Second, I did not talk about the secretary. I am talking about the programmer, without wage insurance, receiving unemployment checks for 300 bucks a month. The programmer paid into the system, so it is his money. Similarly, a wage insurance plan would work but prevent such extremes in income-inequality. I did not, and would not, talk about raising income taxes on the programmer. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS, SIR? I am totally perplexed because I re-read my own post, which I usually do, at least a third time now. Frankly, it is clear; it is plain; it is obvious that I am not raising his taxes. Gosh.
Last, you live in this world where we do not need anything. You live in this world, as you described, the programmer needs to "find a new job" or "find a new skill." FINE BY ME. I am concerned with the transition. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
I am telling you that there are market forces beyond your control. You may find yourself without a job, and without a job you will find yourself (a) without income and (b) without health insurance.
Wage insurance and universal health care mitigate the effects of your jobless.
I do not think that wage insurance is a good idea because although I may be layed off and the insurance company can pay for me, what happens when 5000 people get layed off? How will the company pay for that?
Is wage insurance going to be public or privately run? If public, who will pay for it? Is this not just another version of well fare of un-employment? If private sure, go ahead and pay those premiums. But I'm gonna laugh and walk on by when you when you find out your insurance company cannot afford to pay because 5000 other people are asking for free money too. I wont help you because you decided to put your money into a system that has serious risks instead of saving your money and being prudent about your spending habits.
I would prefer a public and private hybrid model for wage insurance. The problem is that the wealthy executives will also be insured, and their claims will be enormous; they will reduce your claims to pay for the executives claims. You do not have the clout, money, and resources (not to mention time) to fight as does the executive.
I prefer a public option because it is also about putting government on the side of the individual person again and not just bankers and others, whose government-guaranteed wage insurance (and bonuses) are not even in dispute.
I am telling you that there are market forces beyond your control. You may find yourself without a job, and without a job you will find yourself (a) without income and (b) without health insurance.
Wage insurance and universal health care mitigate the effects of your jobless.
I do not think that wage insurance is a good idea because although I may be layed off and the insurance company can pay for me, what happens when 5000 people get layed off? How will the company pay for that?
Is wage insurance going to be public or privately run? If public, who will pay for it? Is this not just another version of well fare of un-employment? If private sure, go ahead and pay those premiums. But I'm gonna laugh and walk on by when you when you find out your insurance company cannot afford to pay because 5000 other people are asking for free money too. I wont help you because you decided to put your money into a system that has serious risks instead of saving your money and being prudent about your spending habits.
I would prefer a public and private hybrid model for wage insurance. The problem is that the wealthy executives will also be insured, and their claims will be enormous; they will reduce your claims to pay for the executives claims. You do not have the clout, money, and resources (not to mention time) to fight as does the executive.
I prefer a public option because it is also about putting government on the side of the individual person again and not just bankers and others, whose government-guaranteed wage insurance (and bonuses) are not even in dispute.
Don't you see that in order to have wage insurance that is fair, the system will never work? In order to provide for the people you wish to you cannot let the higher payed executives in on the deal.
I would also ask, why you think government is on the side of the individual? The governments job is to collect taxes and they do that at the point of a gun. How could you ever consider that they are on your side?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are.
Second, I did not talk about the secretary. I am talking about the programmer, without wage insurance, receiving unemployment checks for 300 bucks a month. The programmer paid into the system, so it is his money. Similarly, a wage insurance plan would work but prevent such extremes in income-inequality. I did not, and would not, talk about raising income taxes on the programmer. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS, SIR? I am totally perplexed because I re-read my own post, which I usually do, at least a third time now. Frankly, it is clear; it is plain; it is obvious that I am not raising his taxes. Gosh.
Last, you live in this world where we do not need anything. You live in this world, as you described, the programmer needs to "find a new job" or "find a new skill." FINE BY ME. I am concerned with the transition. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
There is no safety net except what you plan for. You don't plan, you don't deserve safety. It's through your own effort that you succeed in life, not the anyone else.
If the programmer pays into a wage insurance system, is he going to get more money than what he put in when he needs it? If so, where is the extra money coming from? If not, why does he not save the money himself instead?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are.
Second, I did not talk about the secretary. I am talking about the programmer, without wage insurance, receiving unemployment checks for 300 bucks a month. The programmer paid into the system, so it is his money. Similarly, a wage insurance plan would work but prevent such extremes in income-inequality. I did not, and would not, talk about raising income taxes on the programmer. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS, SIR? I am totally perplexed because I re-read my own post, which I usually do, at least a third time now. Frankly, it is clear; it is plain; it is obvious that I am not raising his taxes. Gosh.
Last, you live in this world where we do not need anything. You live in this world, as you described, the programmer needs to "find a new job" or "find a new skill." FINE BY ME. I am concerned with the transition. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
There is no safety net except what you plan for. You don't plan, you don't deserve safety. It's through your own effort that you succeed in life, not the anyone else.
If the programmer pays into a wage insurance system, is he going to get more money than what he put in when he needs it? If so, where is the extra money coming from? If not, why does he not save the money himself instead?
Move to Africa; sounds like the perfect setup for somebody who doesn't give two shits about their fellow man.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Originally posted by declaredemer Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
1) Let me introduce you to Bob the Builder - the original user of the slogan "Yes We Can!".
2) You are incorrect. People are paid based on the demand for their job. If there is a low demand for programmers then they are paid a lower starting salary, high demand, higher salary. Also, it is dependent upon the actual programming language known. C++ and Java will get you a higher paying salary than say VB because the demand is higher. More education does not equal more productivity. I see day laborers that are more productive in a day than my VP is in a month.
3) A safety net is the responsibility of the individual, not the god damned company for which that individual works, nor is it another taxpayer's responsibility.
4) Yes, indirectly you stated it is the programmer's responsibility. Although the programmer may make the $89,000/year, if they have a spouse who makes say $150K/year, you now wish to tax them to death because they are over a certain magical number when their income is combined.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are.
Second, I did not talk about the secretary. I am talking about the programmer, without wage insurance, receiving unemployment checks for 300 bucks a month. The programmer paid into the system, so it is his money. Similarly, a wage insurance plan would work but prevent such extremes in income-inequality. I did not, and would not, talk about raising income taxes on the programmer. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS, SIR? I am totally perplexed because I re-read my own post, which I usually do, at least a third time now. Frankly, it is clear; it is plain; it is obvious that I am not raising his taxes. Gosh.
Last, you live in this world where we do not need anything. You live in this world, as you described, the programmer needs to "find a new job" or "find a new skill." FINE BY ME. I am concerned with the transition. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
There is no safety net except what you plan for. You don't plan, you don't deserve safety. It's through your own effort that you succeed in life, not the anyone else.
If the programmer pays into a wage insurance system, is he going to get more money than what he put in when he needs it? If so, where is the extra money coming from? If not, why does he not save the money himself instead?
Move to Africa; sounds like the perfect setup for somebody who doesn't give two shits about their fellow man.
I only care about people that give forth effort. Why should I care about anyone else? Why do I have to care about people that want a free ride? Why do I have to care about people that just want to exist off welfare and government handouts? What makes me a bad person when I just care for people that work hard?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
It is the same people who were giving-up their rights for "safety" now telling us that we "don't deserve safety."
Friends, seriously, what scares me is that this is how many people across the country feel. How many exactly? I am not sure, but certainly too many.
I'm not sure I know what you are talking about. What rights have I been giving up?
You should be scared. Lots of people respect effort and nothing else. Are you worried that you do not give forth effort and are not worthy of safety? Are you not planning for your future?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Originally posted by declaredemer Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
1) Let me introduce you to Bob the Builder - the original user of the slogan "Yes We Can!".
Before we proceed any further, you are convinced that the Obama campaign "stole" the campaign slogan from this character?
It seems like we went from "Muslim" to "Foreigner" to "Socialist" to "Hitler" to now "Stealer."
And they say these things not with a straight-face; they say these things with such intensity and fervor that simultaneously inspires a laugh and a certain pity.
Originally posted by Sargoth You should be scared.
I am scared. I am terrified. I see the destruction of the middle-class, and I know what the remedy is: public policies that re-create and secure the middle-class. We need to expand the middle-class, grow it. We need safety nets, above all else.
I am scared. I am terrified. I see gullible Americans voting against their self interests. Amending their Constitutions. Denouncing the public option as "socialism." Fulsome mourning of Michael Jackson. I have seen more outright silliness in the past few months than in my LIFETIME.
I am sacred. I am terrified. I know that one-in-five of your have secure retirements (these are almost all civil servants). I know your houses are worth less than your mortgages. I know you are in excessive household and business debt.
I am scared. I am terrified. I see people carrying weapons at Obama rallies because of health care reform, but I did not see these people any other time. It seems from "Muslim" to "Thief" has inspired a certain outrageous conduct among people. Indeed, I am scared.
Originally posted by declaredemer Before we proceed any further, you are convinced that the Obama campaign "stole" the campaign slogan from this character?
It seems like we went from "Muslim" to "Foreigner" to "Socialist" to "Hitler" to now "Stealer."
And they say these things not with a straight-face; they say these things with such intensity and fervor.
The moment I first heard Obama speak the phrase "Yes we can!" it invoked images of Bob the Builder.
Do I really think he stole it from Bob the Builder? Nah, that was just a light-hearted joke. But, did he still the phrase, oh yes he did.
He "borrowed" it from the nice gathering of illegals who protested across LA shouting "Si Se Puede!" - "Yes We Can!".
Originally posted by declaredemer Originally posted by Cleffy The woman in the article is a woman born into affluence and continues to live beyond her means.
If that is affluence, then we are all in trouble. She is a middle-class woman struggling to maintain an upper middle-class lifestyle (nanny, more than enough home, small luxuries, etc.).
Trust me, she is not rich.
I didn't say rich right there, I said affluence. She was born into a family that had money in Queens. Further up in the post I mentioned most rich are 1st generation. They are first generation for a reason, their offspring lose all their money and they slowly reduce in class over generations.
The moment I first heard Obama speak the phrase "Yes we can!" it invoked images of Bob the Builder. Do I really think he stole it from Bob the Builder? Nah, that was just a light-hearted joke. But, did he still the phrase, oh yes he did. He "borrowed" it from the nice gathering of illegals who protested across LA shouting "Si Se Puede!" - "Yes We Can!".
OK. Just to clarify, because this "stuff" (I had a different s word in mind) is confusing for ME.
Obama did not steal the phrase from Bob the Builder;
"But . . . oh yes he did" steal it;
From "illegals who protested across LA"?
Is that right? I had no idea that Obama stole "Yes. We Can" from illegals across L.A., so just please confirm that for me.
Originally posted by declaredemer I am scared. I am terrified. I see people carrying weapons at Obama rallies because of health care reform, but I did not see these people any other time.
How about checking the other thread for the nice video of the black panthers (laughs) protesting. All of them carried assault rifles, not just one.
Point and laugh - don't be afraid. If someone really wants to end your life, it will happen with or without a gun.
Comments
Oh that poor poor lady! I wonder if there is an address we can all send donations? LOL! Seriously, I almost wet my pants reading this... this woman is an idiot and sadly I think she is raising more idiots that will be no better at managing money and know even less about sacrifice.
No compassion for these folks. I know they earn their money. I've been at that pay grade and I know it's tough.
I also know it's very easy to minimize costs.
They too need to scale back their spending as well as try and reduce their bills like the rest of us. I know it is hard on everyone but in this case it's a matter of people thinking the economy wouldn't hurt their bracket.
"Upper Scale" that is.
These people can't complain in my opinion, not justified. There are people living in cars,tents,etc. These jackasses are complaining they can't keep up with the bills for their decent/cookie cutter dev home/HDTV/BLAHBLAHBLAH?
Fk them.
"I went to buy a toaster, and it came with a bank." lol
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
The point I am trying to emphasis, however, is that I want those opportunities to be available for all Americans. First generation, second generation, and so on and so forth. We have enormous income-inequality today because Sixpacks and Plumbers want that (see, e.g., Sam the Plumber talk about how he plans to "get rich" by buying a business with money he does not and never will have). It is a dream -better described as a fantasy- that people are going to "get rich." It is why, my theory goes, people are inclined to support public policies that are not in their best interests; i.e., they anticipate, some day, in the future, to be the beneficiary of those public policies ("death tax!" or "socialism!" or "medicare queen!").
People with money are not necessarily any better or smarter than anyone else. I come from a family of entrepreneurs. I started my first company was a sophmore in college; my brother owns several businesses; and my dad owns several businesses. Nevertheless, the point is simple: we need to re-create the middle-class through public policies, beginning with universal health care to reduce the costs on individuals and companies. Reduce the frequencies of bankruptcies. Increase the quality of health care provided. Expand coverage and accessibility (such as reductions in wait times).
The middle-class are basically those individuals who had to work very hard to acquire and then work very hard to keep their profession and income (doctors, partners at law firms, business executives, mid-sized business owners, metallurgists, certain corporate scientists/researchers, productive authors, and so forth). The middle-class is a minority. We need to re-create the middle-class by elevating the lower middle-class through wage insurance, universal health care, taxes, and so forth. We need to mitigate income-inequality, or we will lose our middle-class through taxes, bankruptcies, foreclosures, health care costs, tuition costs, energy costs, and so forth. We cannot squeeze them anymore; we need to secure them.
EDIT: The difference between the middle-class and upper middle-class is more or less 100,000 in income; many middle-class individuals struggle to maintain an upper middle-class lifestyle.
So who instead are you going to squeeze to secure the money to elevate the lower-class? Gonna try and level the playing field and make sure everyone has the same amount of money?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In order to mitigate income-inequality we will need to raise taxes on the upper middle-class (incomes from 250k to 500k per annum) and the wealthy (increased taxes on assets such as insurance proceeds, offshore accounts, capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties, and so forth).
We need to reduce taxes on the middle class (250k and under) and below. We need to ensure that affordable, accessible, and quality health care is provide; the best way to achieve this is through a public option. We also need to institute wage insurance to ensure when we enter these Great Recessions that computer programmers, e.g., do not go from 89,000 a year to making 300 bucks a month.
We can do this. Yes. We can.
In order to mitigate income-inequality we will need to raise taxes on the upper middle-class (incomes from 250k to 500k per annum) and the wealthy (increased taxes on assets such as insurance proceeds, offshore accounts, capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties, and so forth).
We need to reduce taxes on the middle class (250k and under) and below. We need to ensure that affordable, accessible, and quality health care is provide; the best way to achieve this is through a public option. We also need to institute wage insurance to ensure when we enter these Great Recessions that computer programmers, e.g., do not go from 89,000 a year to making 300 bucks a month.
We can do this. Yes. We can.
Wow. Tax the rich and feed the poor huh?
Wage insurance is a plan for failure. You seriously expect that in times where it cannot be justified to pay someone a certain salary, that your gonna either force employers to pay that or insurance companies to pay it? What kind of economic fairy world do you want to try and achieve here?
Are you just pulling my chain, this a big ole case of sarcasm? Come on, you can be straight with me.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
I am telling you that there are market forces beyond your control. You may find yourself without a job, and without a job you will find yourself (a) without income and (b) without health insurance.
Wage insurance and universal health care mitigate the effects of your jobless.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
I do not think that wage insurance is a good idea because although I may be layed off and the insurance company can pay for me, what happens when 5000 people get layed off? How will the company pay for that?
Is wage insurance going to be public or privately run? If public, who will pay for it? Is this not just another version of well fare of un-employment? If private sure, go ahead and pay those premiums. But I'm gonna laugh and walk on by when you when you find out your insurance company cannot afford to pay because 5000 other people are asking for free money too. I wont help you because you decided to put your money into a system that has serious risks instead of saving your money and being prudent about your spending habits.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are.
Second, I did not talk about the secretary. I am talking about the programmer, without wage insurance, receiving unemployment checks for 300 bucks a month. The programmer paid into the system, so it is his money. Similarly, a wage insurance plan would work but prevent such extremes in income-inequality. I did not, and would not, talk about raising income taxes on the programmer. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS, SIR? I am totally perplexed because I re-read my own post, which I usually do, at least a third time now. Frankly, it is clear; it is plain; it is obvious that I am not raising his taxes. Gosh.
Last, you live in this world where we do not need anything. You live in this world, as you described, the programmer needs to "find a new job" or "find a new skill." FINE BY ME. I am concerned with the transition. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
I do not think that wage insurance is a good idea because although I may be layed off and the insurance company can pay for me, what happens when 5000 people get layed off? How will the company pay for that?
Is wage insurance going to be public or privately run? If public, who will pay for it? Is this not just another version of well fare of un-employment? If private sure, go ahead and pay those premiums. But I'm gonna laugh and walk on by when you when you find out your insurance company cannot afford to pay because 5000 other people are asking for free money too. I wont help you because you decided to put your money into a system that has serious risks instead of saving your money and being prudent about your spending habits.
I would prefer a public and private hybrid model for wage insurance. The problem is that the wealthy executives will also be insured, and their claims will be enormous; they will reduce your claims to pay for the executives claims. You do not have the clout, money, and resources (not to mention time) to fight as does the executive.
I prefer a public option because it is also about putting government on the side of the individual person again and not just bankers and others, whose government-guaranteed wage insurance (and bonuses) are not even in dispute.
I do not think that wage insurance is a good idea because although I may be layed off and the insurance company can pay for me, what happens when 5000 people get layed off? How will the company pay for that?
Is wage insurance going to be public or privately run? If public, who will pay for it? Is this not just another version of well fare of un-employment? If private sure, go ahead and pay those premiums. But I'm gonna laugh and walk on by when you when you find out your insurance company cannot afford to pay because 5000 other people are asking for free money too. I wont help you because you decided to put your money into a system that has serious risks instead of saving your money and being prudent about your spending habits.
I would prefer a public and private hybrid model for wage insurance. The problem is that the wealthy executives will also be insured, and their claims will be enormous; they will reduce your claims to pay for the executives claims. You do not have the clout, money, and resources (not to mention time) to fight as does the executive.
I prefer a public option because it is also about putting government on the side of the individual person again and not just bankers and others, whose government-guaranteed wage insurance (and bonuses) are not even in dispute.
Don't you see that in order to have wage insurance that is fair, the system will never work? In order to provide for the people you wish to you cannot let the higher payed executives in on the deal.
I would also ask, why you think government is on the side of the individual? The governments job is to collect taxes and they do that at the point of a gun. How could you ever consider that they are on your side?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are.
Second, I did not talk about the secretary. I am talking about the programmer, without wage insurance, receiving unemployment checks for 300 bucks a month. The programmer paid into the system, so it is his money. Similarly, a wage insurance plan would work but prevent such extremes in income-inequality. I did not, and would not, talk about raising income taxes on the programmer. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS, SIR? I am totally perplexed because I re-read my own post, which I usually do, at least a third time now. Frankly, it is clear; it is plain; it is obvious that I am not raising his taxes. Gosh.
Last, you live in this world where we do not need anything. You live in this world, as you described, the programmer needs to "find a new job" or "find a new skill." FINE BY ME. I am concerned with the transition. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
There is no safety net except what you plan for. You don't plan, you don't deserve safety. It's through your own effort that you succeed in life, not the anyone else.
If the programmer pays into a wage insurance system, is he going to get more money than what he put in when he needs it? If so, where is the extra money coming from? If not, why does he not save the money himself instead?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are.
Second, I did not talk about the secretary. I am talking about the programmer, without wage insurance, receiving unemployment checks for 300 bucks a month. The programmer paid into the system, so it is his money. Similarly, a wage insurance plan would work but prevent such extremes in income-inequality. I did not, and would not, talk about raising income taxes on the programmer. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS, SIR? I am totally perplexed because I re-read my own post, which I usually do, at least a third time now. Frankly, it is clear; it is plain; it is obvious that I am not raising his taxes. Gosh.
Last, you live in this world where we do not need anything. You live in this world, as you described, the programmer needs to "find a new job" or "find a new skill." FINE BY ME. I am concerned with the transition. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
There is no safety net except what you plan for. You don't plan, you don't deserve safety. It's through your own effort that you succeed in life, not the anyone else.
If the programmer pays into a wage insurance system, is he going to get more money than what he put in when he needs it? If so, where is the extra money coming from? If not, why does he not save the money himself instead?
Move to Africa; sounds like the perfect setup for somebody who doesn't give two shits about their fellow man.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
It is the same people who were giving-up their rights for "safety" now telling us that we "don't deserve safety."
Friends, seriously, what scares me is that this is how many people across the country feel. How many exactly? I am not sure, but certainly too many.
1) Let me introduce you to Bob the Builder - the original user of the slogan "Yes We Can!".
2) You are incorrect. People are paid based on the demand for their job. If there is a low demand for programmers then they are paid a lower starting salary, high demand, higher salary. Also, it is dependent upon the actual programming language known. C++ and Java will get you a higher paying salary than say VB because the demand is higher. More education does not equal more productivity. I see day laborers that are more productive in a day than my VP is in a month.
3) A safety net is the responsibility of the individual, not the god damned company for which that individual works, nor is it another taxpayer's responsibility.
4) Yes, indirectly you stated it is the programmer's responsibility. Although the programmer may make the $89,000/year, if they have a spouse who makes say $150K/year, you now wish to tax them to death because they are over a certain magical number when their income is combined.
There should never be a policy on income equality, ever. I am speaking in terms of taking from one group and giving to another so there is a balance of income - I am not speaking of women earning the same as men, et cetera, just to make that point clear.
If, in your example (the programmer), makes $89,000/year and a secretary makes $25,000/year, they are getting paid for the demand of their job. That is their EARNED salary. The programmer should not be taxed more to provide a higher income for the lower paid individuals simply because the programmer EARNED a degree, or has a set of skills, which is/are in more demand than that of a non-skilled secretary.
There needs not be wage insurance either. If the programmer loses a job and goes from making $89,000 to $300/month, then the programmer either finds work elsewhere or develops a new skill - maybe that of a secretary.
Bob the Builder? Joe the Plumber? I just bet his name is not Bob, and he is not a builder.
First, people are paid not based on demand but on productivity, all things being equal. The more skills and education you possess, generally speaking, the more productive you are.
Second, I did not talk about the secretary. I am talking about the programmer, without wage insurance, receiving unemployment checks for 300 bucks a month. The programmer paid into the system, so it is his money. Similarly, a wage insurance plan would work but prevent such extremes in income-inequality. I did not, and would not, talk about raising income taxes on the programmer. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS, SIR? I am totally perplexed because I re-read my own post, which I usually do, at least a third time now. Frankly, it is clear; it is plain; it is obvious that I am not raising his taxes. Gosh.
Last, you live in this world where we do not need anything. You live in this world, as you described, the programmer needs to "find a new job" or "find a new skill." FINE BY ME. I am concerned with the transition. The safety net. The ability to acquire a new skill and find a new job and survive on 300 bucks a month. Look, I know you think you will become more "successful" by screwing yourself. Good luck. It is not working.
There is no safety net except what you plan for. You don't plan, you don't deserve safety. It's through your own effort that you succeed in life, not the anyone else.
If the programmer pays into a wage insurance system, is he going to get more money than what he put in when he needs it? If so, where is the extra money coming from? If not, why does he not save the money himself instead?
Move to Africa; sounds like the perfect setup for somebody who doesn't give two shits about their fellow man.
I only care about people that give forth effort. Why should I care about anyone else? Why do I have to care about people that want a free ride? Why do I have to care about people that just want to exist off welfare and government handouts? What makes me a bad person when I just care for people that work hard?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
It is the same people who were giving-up their rights for "safety" now telling us that we "don't deserve safety."
Friends, seriously, what scares me is that this is how many people across the country feel. How many exactly? I am not sure, but certainly too many.
I'm not sure I know what you are talking about. What rights have I been giving up?
You should be scared. Lots of people respect effort and nothing else. Are you worried that you do not give forth effort and are not worthy of safety? Are you not planning for your future?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
1) Let me introduce you to Bob the Builder - the original user of the slogan "Yes We Can!".
Before we proceed any further, you are convinced that the Obama campaign "stole" the campaign slogan from this character?
It seems like we went from "Muslim" to "Foreigner" to "Socialist" to "Hitler" to now "Stealer."
And they say these things not with a straight-face; they say these things with such intensity and fervor that simultaneously inspires a laugh and a certain pity.
I am scared. I am terrified. I see the destruction of the middle-class, and I know what the remedy is: public policies that re-create and secure the middle-class. We need to expand the middle-class, grow it. We need safety nets, above all else.
I am scared. I am terrified. I see gullible Americans voting against their self interests. Amending their Constitutions. Denouncing the public option as "socialism." Fulsome mourning of Michael Jackson. I have seen more outright silliness in the past few months than in my LIFETIME.
I am sacred. I am terrified. I know that one-in-five of your have secure retirements (these are almost all civil servants). I know your houses are worth less than your mortgages. I know you are in excessive household and business debt.
I am scared. I am terrified. I see people carrying weapons at Obama rallies because of health care reform, but I did not see these people any other time. It seems from "Muslim" to "Thief" has inspired a certain outrageous conduct among people. Indeed, I am scared.
The moment I first heard Obama speak the phrase "Yes we can!" it invoked images of Bob the Builder.
Do I really think he stole it from Bob the Builder? Nah, that was just a light-hearted joke. But, did he still the phrase, oh yes he did.
He "borrowed" it from the nice gathering of illegals who protested across LA shouting "Si Se Puede!" - "Yes We Can!".
If that is affluence, then we are all in trouble. She is a middle-class woman struggling to maintain an upper middle-class lifestyle (nanny, more than enough home, small luxuries, etc.).
Trust me, she is not rich.
I didn't say rich right there, I said affluence. She was born into a family that had money in Queens. Further up in the post I mentioned most rich are 1st generation. They are first generation for a reason, their offspring lose all their money and they slowly reduce in class over generations.
OK. Just to clarify, because this "stuff" (I had a different s word in mind) is confusing for ME.
Is that right? I had no idea that Obama stole "Yes. We Can" from illegals across L.A., so just please confirm that for me.
How about checking the other thread for the nice video of the black panthers (laughs) protesting. All of them carried assault rifles, not just one.
Point and laugh - don't be afraid. If someone really wants to end your life, it will happen with or without a gun.