America's Super-Rich

So the New York Times reports today that America's ultra-wealthy may finally be feeling the pinch. "After 30-Year Run, Rise of the Super-Rich Hits a Sobering Wall," David Leonhardt and Gerladine Fabrikant tell us, profiling the likes of John McAfee, the once-flush founder of the antivirus software company that bears his name, now down to a mere $4 million in net worth.

I suspect not many readers will pity McAfee, nor should they, since until recently the rich – and the super-rich in particular – literally never had it better. The economist Emmanuel Saez recently crunched the numbers and found that, between 1993 and 2006, roughly half of overall income growth in the United States went to the top 1 percent of all families. During the expansion overseen by George W. Bush, "the top 1 percent captured almost three-quarters of income growth." This was great for ordinary Americans, Republicans told us at the time. Except that it wasn't. According to Saez, real income for Americans in the bottom 99 percent increased by just 1.1 percent per year between 1993 and 2006. During the Bush expansion, it fell below 1 percent per year.

The shrinking fortunes of multi-millionaires such as McAfee will likely make it easy for Barack Obama to boast, in 2012, that he oversaw a decrease in the level of inequality. But the boast will be hollow if the main cause is merely that people who were extremely wealthy in 2006 became slightly less wealthy six years later. It will mean something only if policies are designed to benefit the vast number of Americans whose fortunes did not rise in tandem with the stock-market in recent years. A good place to start would be to quell the growing signs of unrest among the administration's progressive supporters by passing meaningful health-care reform.

Comments (207)

1. Well, actually, part of it may be that...

   McAfee software sucks.

   I switched back to Norton.

   Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 1:58pm

2. Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 1:58pm

   And isn't it nice you had that choice Mask?

   Too bad we won't have that option at all once our health care system is a government run monopoly.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:05pm

3. But, but, but we are going to tax the Rich to pay for all the "tax and spend" programs leftist Demoncrats are printing money for? So what now; OOOOH..... I get it now you are going to tax heavily the rest of us and consume 50% of the GDP so all will be poor and dependent on the nanny state!

   Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 2:07pm

4. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:05pm

   Yep....I regret every day the fact I have no other options for ...Interstate Highways or space exploration or national defense or food & drug inspection.

   Damn government monopolies!!!!!!!!!

   Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 2:12pm

5. posted by EYAL PRESS on 08/21/2009 @ 1:50pm

   I think very people understand just how hollowed out the middle class has become, as the very richest have taken the lion's share of all wealth, income, and income growth, year, after year, after year. Some day, something is going to fracture and break somewhere, in a way that none of us, in particular the very rich, are going to like at all.

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 2:19pm

6. The super rich are declining and so are the revenues to the treasury...so with the rich disappearing, and so are the jobs the rich create, the govt will run out of the "rich" to blame as well as tax money to spend ...so who will they look to for more money?

   The middle?

   Posted by YourJomamma at 08/21/2009 @ 2:30pm

7. I do hope the Kennedys and the Boxwers, Pelosis, the other good libs wont run out of money.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 08/21/2009 @ 2:31pm

8. Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 2:19pm

   If wealth was zero sum you'd have a point. But it isn't. Bill Gates is not rich because we are poor. And your inability to comprehend that makes you a pawn. -----------------------

   Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 2:12pm

   That you can compare the constitutional building and maintenance of highways (roads) with the potential nationalization of health insurance proves to me you're just about the sport of argument, Mask, not about results. Nothing wrong with that. But you are clearly more weathervane than you are a force of nature.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:33pm

9. Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 2:12pm

   You didn't even get to the good stuff Mask. Where's the talk about how the postal monopoly is killing UPS? What about NASA putting Scaled Composites out of business? Where's the discussion of city water companies preventing Coca-Cola/Pepsi from selling water in expensive plastic bottles? What about public education making it impossible for private schools to operate? Cost-effective public transportation is undercutting the automotive market, stopping people from purchasing and riding bicycles or even walking.

   And what is with the free roads, anyway? I'd like to pay more tolls, preferably every quarter of a mile so I can go real slow and improve my gas mileage.

   Can you imagine what would happen if government were to make basic health care available to everyone? How will hospitals and doctors be able to up-charge more "advanced" services like private rooms to those with the money to spend that wouldn't be offered by the government system? Who will make the bottled water of health care when it's free to be had everywhere?</sarcasm>

   Posted by srjenkins at 08/21/2009 @ 2:48pm

10. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:33pm

    Building of highways is not in the Constitution and clearly wasn't intended to be a federal government supported function by the founders. Your Constitutional argument fails on its own terms. If it is Constitutional for the federal government to build roads have a professional standing army, or dictate standards for schools, then it is Constitutional to run a federal health care system.

    Care to try again?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/21/2009 @ 2:51pm

11. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    No, no, Bill Gates is rich in part because Microsoft was a very valuable company, and he was the lucky guy who got to be on top.

    He is also rich because of:

    * government indulgence of the monopoly power Microsoft has with Windows and Office, which results in higher prices for consumers (meaning he is richer as we get poorer when we buy his products than we would be without his monopoly tolerated).

    * government indulgence of figures like Gates whose primary income is drastically under-taxed capital gains (he doesn't pay taxes on a major portion of his income at the rate we do, which effectively shifts the cost of government off of him onto workers, making us poorer and him richer).

    * government indulgence of figures like Gates in terms of the regular income tax (see point above about shifting costs of government off of Gates).

    * government and societal indulgence of the huge salaries and bonuses afforded to figures like Gates in the face of diminishing real wages for workers (meaning corporations employ people and simply underpay workers while heaping unimaginable wealth on the figures on top who incidentally make the pay rules in the corporations).

    Gates is rich in part because Microsoft was valuable, and now because Gates has the financial planning capacity of a small corporation working exclusively on enhancing his private wealth. Gates is also very rich at the expensive of those who work because of government policies that favor enhancing Gates' wealth at the expensive of others who work. Finally, Bill Gates is an odd figure, a man who became incredibly rich in his own lifetime. Most people who are incredibly rich are born that way. Another discussion, that.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 3:01pm

12. 60 members of the House made it clear they won't vote for a bill without a public option.

    In four days, FireDogLake and partners raised nearly $350,000 for progressive members of Congress who agree to draw a line in the sand over a public plan.

    As a hint, and an object lesson, you, too, can offer carrots to these progressive politicians at ACT Blue:

    http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthepledge

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/21/2009 @ 3:07pm

13. Care to try again?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/21/2009 @ 2:51pm

    Sure, you've made my point for me. If, as you claim, there's no provision under section 8 for the building of roads, and, as I fully agree, "[building highways] wasn't intended to be a federal government supported function by the founders", and nothing in there either about dictating school standards, then I can only say there's certainly no place for a federal health care system.

    But that's not what you mean, srjenkins, is it?

    No, in a political world where "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin" can turn into a creature like the Federal Reserve, why should I waste my time trying to argue for liberty with people who can't even recognize it? Aside from the fun of it, I mean.

    For the life of me I will never understand the blind faith you all put into government.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:13pm

14. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:13pm

    So NASA is un-Constitutional, right?

    Damn liberal Armstrong and Aldrin...freeloading Marxists taking "foreign" vacations on my tax dollars!

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:18pm

15. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    While we're discussing "shifting costs of government off of the rich and onto those who work" as one of the reasons Bill Gates is richer because we are poorer, let's also add to the discussion the idea that, by underfunding education, health care, and essentially all domestic needs had by people who work for a living as far as civilized western governments generally provide services for working people, Bill Gates "tax relief" that makes him very very rich is really just about making people much poorer to his benefit.

    De-funding education is a direct attack on the prosperity of the middle class and creates crime and poverty. Yet, we de-fund education, so that Gates and figures like him do not face a tax picture that they would face in other civilized western countries.

    And de-funding health care hasn't just created economic and health crises for working people, its also become a major strain even for major employers. Still, in order to keep individual rich people from facing a tax picture that they face in other civilized western countries, these health and economic crises are tolerated.

    The rich here in America very much are richer because people are poorer. Certainly, one major cause is the hugely disparate incomes between the rich and those who must work. Another major contributor is tax policy.

    Sooner or later all of the "debate" will be moot - something is going to fracture and break, and none of us is going to like it when that happens. Especially the richest Americans.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 3:20pm

16. Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:18pm

    Federal funding for NASA is as constitutional as abortion rights Mask.

    And your quip misses the point. Do you trust politicians and their incentives is my point.

    The Framers didn't.

    Their wisdom is what I'm sorry to say is fading from the public square.

    Especially this one.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:27pm

17. syfriendly,

    You probably ought to take a trip over to www.irs.gov.

    The IRS web site.

    Look up the historical data on tax revenue by income distribution.

    Crunch the numbers you see there.

    Ooops! The wealthy pay most of the tax in this country.

    From the tone/context of your comments, I do not think you knew that.

    Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 3:35pm

18. "Federal funding for NASA is as constitutional as abortion rights Mask."---Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:27pm

    No direct answer to that, huh, FREI? Come on, even Larry/antisoc supports NASA...though, as you have no doubt figured out, it runs contrary to yours and his "principled stance on Constitutional powers"....unless we want to interpret "interstate commerce" as extending to the Sea of Tranquility.

    One basic question....under FREI's perfect world...would you see NASA eliminated from the budget...and just to make it tougher BACK-DATED to before 1969. i.e. no Moon Landings since it's not "Constitutional"?

    You DO believe we landed on the Moon, right???

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:36pm

19. Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 3:20pm

    You would benefit from reading "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.

    You won't. But I wish you would.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:38pm

20. No, we did not land on the moon.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:42pm

21. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    So, government policies have made Gates and figures like him richer at the expense of working people getting poorer, or not. I made some concrete statements. You haven't.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 3:43pm

22. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Never mind. If you believe the moon landing was staged we can leave off (definitely).

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 3:43pm

23. Haha, I'm just pulling Mask's chain.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:45pm

24. Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 3:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Those who have most of the wealth will by definition pay most of the tax. The INCOME tax rate faced by the wealthiest has dropped over the last 30 years from a very high rate (matched by most civilized western nations) to a low rate today. A figure who makes 50 million dollars a year in regular income now pays only a few percent more rate than someone who makes 75K a year. This is called "effective exemption of the wealthy from taxation" and "crippling the federal government in its ability to provide basic needed domestic services so that rich people get off smiling".

    And the CAPITAL GAINS tax rate? This game the rich have played so well makes it so that someone with 50 million dollars in capital gains in a year pays a tax rate a bit over half what the 75K a year worker pays.

    And let's not even get started on the disproportionate pay schemes across corporate employers.

    The rich are getting away with economic rape.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 3:48pm

25. I have a 2pm meeting, so I'll leave you to our spinning heads, green vomit and gnashing teeth.

    But I'll be back floating above the bed with y'all soon!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:50pm

26. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:13pm

    "But that's not what you mean, srjenkins, is it?"

    Actually, it is exactly what I meant. The problem is that originalists and other people that worship the Constitution as if it were a deity often make exceptions or excuses to change the meaning of it to suit their agenda.

    The Constitution doesn't have provisions for maintaining 1,000 bases abroad or a standing army. Yet, every day there will be someone here talking about the Constitution but redefining it so that it's okay to conduct wars of aggression or levy $600 billion+ worth of taxes to fund "defense" so broadly defined that the Founders wouldn't even understand what you are talking about.

    The defense issue also points to the real flaw of the Constitution. It doesn't provide for a standing army, but it only took a few years before the Founders understood they needed a standing professional army to deal with the Indian population because militias weren't up to the task. So, they made a choice based on what was necessary and proper - which eventually included railroads, telephone monopolies, federal involvement in schools, and so forth and so on.

    There is a reality that sometimes government involvement is a net positive. As much as I hate government, it is a fact that you need it if you are going to have clean water, reasonable working hours/conditions, uncontaminated food, national parks, eliminating snake oil fraud in health care and so forth and so on. All of which ain't in the Constitution, but it very much necessary and proper.

    And that's the bottom line on it. Limited government like the founders envisioned doesn't work. It leaves people free to be fucked over - free to work 20 hour days, free to die an early death from black lung in a coal mine, etc.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/21/2009 @ 4:19pm

27. "Most people who are incredibly rich are born that way. Another discussion, that."

    "The rich here in America very much are richer because people are poorer."

    Sy,

    You should pick up a small book called, "The Millionare Next Door" and spend some time with it. It is an easy read.

    Once you have read this and overcome your embarassment with your complete lack of understanding of the economic system here and how it works, you will then seek out your former teachers in your public school system and you will want to sue them for fraud.

    At your current state of knowledge and understanding you will never become wealthy or successful in the big picture. You will, however, be an ABSOLUTE PERFECT candidate for a union. Maybe even aspire to a teachers union member or the Post Office.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 08/21/2009 @ 4:32pm

28. You know what it all comes down to in this country?

    Some people believe we should look out for each other. Some people believe it's every man for himself. *

    Sadly, the latter group is winning.

    *Oddly, this group often includes people who call themselves Christians and claim to be followers of that wily ol' socialist Himself.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 08/21/2009 @ 4:33pm

29. Citizen,

    There's a third group.

    Those who thInk their neighbors owe them things they can't or won't get for themselves.

    This third group is the one that now is winnng and is re writing the rules.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 08/21/2009 @ 4:43pm

30. The GOP idea that you're going to solve the worst financial crisis and ecomonic recession since the 1930's by simply going back to cut-spending / hands-off / trickle-down, after it totally failed in the Reagan/Bush era, is ridiculous.

    Only those in denial could still believe that.

    We simply need to divy up the bailout costs across all Americans on a pro-rata basis, and send out a bill: subsistence-wage workers, pay nothing. 6-figure people, pay something. 7-figure people should pay the rest.

    That is simple and fair, and it does not hand the bill to future Americans -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 08/21/2009 @ 5:06pm

31. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:13pm

    So NASA is un-Constitutional, right?

    Damn liberal Armstrong and Aldrin...freeloading Marxists taking "foreign" vacations on my tax dollars!

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I heard Buzz Aldrin on the radio here (WRIF-FM/Drew & Mike)a couple mornings ago. What a character. Can't imagine what he was like when he was drinking (wasn't called Buzz for nothing, I hear).

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/21/2009 @ 5:46pm

32. And the CAPITAL GAINS tax rate? This game the rich have played so well makes.....

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 3:48pm

    Your simpleton mind needs Sowell's Basic Economics badly!

    Think of all the high-tech companies created just in your adulthood, say 20 years.....

    Now, how many of those companies would exist today had CG tax rates had been what you like to see, say 50%?

    As an investor, if CG rates anywhere near 50%, I won't risk a penny on ANY startups or young companies without any PROFITS!

    Now, please get this in your head....(if) you want jobs and maintain some leadership in cutting-edge anything, you keep your paws off CG rates......otherwise, there aren't enough Wal-Mart jobs to absorb the science/engineering/medial graduates!

    Posted by Happy at 08/21/2009 @ 5:48pm

33. I have a 2pm meeting, so I'll leave you to our spinning heads, green vomit and gnashing teeth.

    But I'll be back floating above the bed with y'all soon!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    William Friedkin would be so proud!

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/21/2009 @ 5:49pm

34. Posted by YourJomamma at 08/21/2009 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You do understand that you didn't actually respond to any of the detailed arguments I made about tax policies, disparate real wage gains over time, and de-funding of domestic needs for the purposes of exempting the rich from the taxation they face elsewhere in the civilized developed world, right?

    You can be an insulting asshole, that's fine - it very much appears your nature - but at least try to say something real, too - otherwise you really can't be taken seriously. It's probably been concluded more than once with you already that you really can't be taken seriously.

    Being an asshole about what I write does not mean that what I write is wrong, if you don't actually address it. It just means that you're an asshole.

    And I don't think there is a book to recommend to help you understand that any better.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 5:51pm

35. No direct answer to that, huh, FREI? Come on, even Larry/antisoc supports NASA...

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    But with Larry, anything militarily connected gets the green light.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/21/2009 @ 5:51pm

36. Posted by Happy at 08/21/2009 @ 5:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The investors in the rest of the civilized world invest away quite happily facing a radically different tax picture than they do here. You're full of shit. The rich anywhere will invest their money as the system allows. If the capital gains rate is raised here, you'll keep investing your money as if nothing happened at all. You and the rest of the investors will realize you can either put all your money in savings accounts or in a bunch of mattresses, or you can invest on the terms and conditions presented to you. You'll do so eagerly and happily. The problem is not investors, the problem is a government that is completely corrupt and executes tax and all other policies in a grotesquely imbalanced way.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 5:54pm

37. syfriendly,

    You are complaining every which way about the rich and taxes, but if they pay most of the tax, which they do and which you yourself admit, then what is there for you to complain about?

    Yet, you are complaining so I guess that means you want even more tax money out of the rich.

    For what?

    To turn over to the government so the government can waste it? And to take it away from those who are the job and opportunity creators? The more money you take from them, the fewer jobs and economic opportunity for others there will be.

    Don't tell me about social programs. This (the United States) is the most generous nation in human history with regard to aid to our own people and others in the world.

    This includes considerable donation of both monetary resources and people's time to charitable causes. And most of those donations do far more good for those in need than government aid does.

    All most government aid ever did was to impoverish people permanently and make them wards of the state. The Great Society programs, while well intentioned, certainly did not solve poverty in this country.

    In many cases government programs have actually hurt people. The Great Society, for some period of time in this country, actually destroyed the concept of the Black family in the inner cities. Single motherhood was encouraged, not overtly, but in practicality, because to get married meant losing assistance. But the breakdown of the family perpetuated the poverty and the continuation of the need for assistance.

    Just dumping more money into the Government won't resolve the issues of poverty. The Government collects more tax now than it needs.

    You have no basis for complaint. The wealthy pay most of the tax now, and there is no need to give the government more.

    Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 6:44pm

38. Would one of you post your copy of the current Social Contract here for us to read. I can't find mine, and I would like to make sure I'm getting all the things that I have a right to. I'd also like to see what I'm responsible for. I got confused recently after I read the UN Declaration on Human Rights. It all seems good, but it says governments are responsible for providing all the goodies. But the people don't seem to have to do anything. I know that the people are the government. But it seems a little vague. I know we pay taxes if we work. But I seem to have a right to almost everything. I was thinking of not working, since it doesn't seem like I have to. But, just to make sure, I thought I'd check the official Social Contract.

    Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 6:47pm

39. <I suspect not many readers will pity McAfee, nor should they, since until recently the rich – and the super-rich in particular – literally never had it better.>

    So, where's the part about the facts that because of his creativity, thousands of people have jobs?

    As of the 2008 Financials, there were 5600 employees of McAfee, with a 31.8% employee growth over 2007.

    What an evil man (not).

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 6:47pm

40. Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 6:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Once again, I made very specific statements about for example tax policy. You seem incapable of acknowledging these statements, and responding to them. That is because there is weight behind those statements. Instead, you poof out some more fluffy nonsense.

    You can reply back to what I actually wrote in the post that you responded to, or you can talk to yourself.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 6:52pm

41. Has anyone else noticed how incomprehensibly stupid and fact-averse the "conservatives" are? It's seems they've really become "movement" dominated by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and the local maniacs waving "repent signs" in the street or stockpiling weapons and bottled water in their basements.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 6:54pm

42. Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Actually, most of the employees of the company making the software that carries his name are not employed because of HIS creativity. He is a rich old guy who doesn't do anything for a living and he has been for some time. He has property rights and stock in the company, and sits on top of it.

    The people who work for that company work for the company because it isn't doesn't exist without them - though it can assuredly exist without McAfee himself - and they are employed because of THEIR creativity and capabilities and hard work, not HIS.

    Furthermore, they don't get shit in payment or security or a stake in the company whereas he gets it all. The workers at McAfee are making paychecks and getting (marginal normally) insurance plans. McAfee and his chosen few at the top of the company who hang around bragging about their art collections and wine cellars to each other get all the money and security.

    But they don't work for a living or anything like that.

    You really mindlessly worship wealth, don't you. Just the same as back in casted India or dynastic Egypt.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 6:59pm

43. sjchermak, so lets do away with all help from govt, we'll get the corporations to help to feed the poor and take care of healthcare etc etc etc, yea, thats the ticket, you guys never quit do you, you and the rest of the tighty righty's, give it a rest.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 7:02pm

44. Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I can tell you don't do anything vaguely resembling working for a living; your views of workers can't even get to the level of "contemptuous" because you don't seem to be really aware that people actually DO work for a living.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:02pm

45. Furthermore, they don't get shit in payment or security or a stake in the company whereas he gets it all. The workers at McAfee are making paychecks and getting (marginal normally) insurance plans. McAfee and his chosen few at the top of the company who hang around bragging about their art collections and wine cellars to each other get all the money and security.

    But they don't work for a living or anything like that.

    You really mindlessly worship wealth, don't you. Just the same as back in casted India or dynastic Egypt.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 6:59pm

    Do you really believe the stuff you write?

    He keeps it all? You do know this is a publicly traded company?

    And that employees receive stock option and profit sharing?

    Here is from a McAfee hiring opening ad.

    <We offer a full range of competitive benefits to our full-time employees. Our extensive plan includes company paid Medical, Dental, and Vision coverage, Paid Time Off, paid Holidays, Stock Options, Flexible Spending Account, Educational Assistance Program, 401(k), ESPP and more!>

    Let's see, I don't have a single one of those benefits. How about you?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 7:08pm

46. I can tell you don't do anything vaguely resembling working for a living; your views of workers can't even get to the level of "contemptuous" because you don't seem to be really aware that people actually DO work for a living.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:02pm

    I in nearly 50 years of working, I have worked at many low paying menial jobs from dishwasher and busboy, cleaning metal parts in acid tanks, sweeping floors, a cook, warehouse work (lifting ave of 40,000 pounds per day), retail, pool cleaning, machine shop, assembly person in machine shop, selling Christmas trees (age 10 and 11), delivering newspapers (age 10-14 and age 22, 23 by car), mowing lawns (age 8-14), babysitting (age 11-14), worked on catering trucks as cook and driver.

    You have no idea who I really am. I have worked full time since age 15 when I began supporting my mother and siblings. Served 4 years in the military.

    I worked my way from the very bottom, so don't tell me about contempt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 7:28pm

47. Has anyone else noticed how incomprehensibly stupid and fact-averse the "conservatives" are?

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 6:54pm

    No, but what I have noticed is "how incomprehensibly stupid and fact-averse" that BLOGS are. With the demise of the MSM as a watchdog for the people, I think we're in a world where you can have any "fact" you want. Take the discussion on various bills in Congress. You can find any explanation you want, each one will be upheld as absolute truth, and each one will be declared an utter fabrication. Each with its own experts as perceived by the ideological bent of the person doing the research. You do your own research and make your own conclusions. In some ways too much information has become the same as no information.

    Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 7:29pm

48. Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 7:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    As I said, McAfee doesn't work for a living (its a public company and all) and he is just a rich old guy who along with his select few have effectively all the wealth in that company. His employees are there because of THEIR creativity and hard work, not his, and they are working for pay checks and (normally marginal) insurance plans. And as for the "stock options" I don't know if you've ever vested in an options plan at a public company as a regular worker before but your Grand Payoff is normally a down payment on a house. At best.

    Finally, as to what benefits you have had or not, well, I could already tell that you could use an Educational Assistance Program in the very least. And I don't know how you could ask for paid time off (real world middle class vacation allowances at technology companies are the stingiest in the modern developed world) if you don't work for a living to begin with.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:30pm

49. You'd think with all their wealth America's Super-Rich could afford to pay some smarter, saner people to defend their sense of entitlement online than the lot here, which is kind of "Jerry Springer Meets the Southern Baptist Convention at a Gun Show".

    Now put down those AR-15s!! Medicare IS a government program!!

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:32pm

50. Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Fine, you're a self-hating worker, a sort of Uncle Tom of the Proletariat. You'd probably benefit from the sorts of reforms that so many of us want to see pass.

    Quit shooting yourself in the foot (with your AR-15).

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:34pm

51. Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 7:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I think that your blog comment is amongst the truest I've ever read (though if you're right, that isn't saying much!)

    For my part, I sense my own short career in blog commenting coming to an end, soon. It's not clear what doing this could ever accomplish except wasting lots of my own and others' time.

    I appreciate your sensibility there. Have a good evening.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:36pm

52. Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Finally, all this bullshit about hard work you spout really has nothing to do with the reality of rich people as a body in the US, because most of those who are rich are BORN THAT WAY and NEVER HAVE TO WORK A DAY IN THEIR LIVES but LIVE IN GREAT PLACES AND PART IN LUXURIOUS VACATION SPOTS.

    And PROTECTING THE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT TO SUCH INDULGENCE is what the last 30 years of tax policy changes and skyrocketing differences in executive versus other forms of compensation HAVE BEEN ALL ABOUT.

    Government by the Rich, for the Rich. Pass the wine, let's go to the Caribbean!!

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:44pm

53. Hey syfriendly, I for one like reading what you post. Don't let anti and the rest of the tighty rightys get to you, you know thats the only reason they are here.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 8:11pm

54. Finally, as to what benefits you have had or not, well, I could already tell that you could use an Educational Assistance Program in the very least. And I don't know how you could ask for paid time off (real world middle class vacation allowances at technology companies are the stingiest in the modern developed world) if you don't work for a living to begin with.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:30pm

    I have multiple degrees thank you so educational assistance is not needed.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 8:16pm

55. Finally, all this bullshit about hard work you spout really has nothing to do with the reality of rich people as a body in the US, because most of those who are rich are BORN THAT WAY and NEVER HAVE TO WORK A DAY IN THEIR LIVES but LIVE IN GREAT PLACES AND PART IN LUXURIOUS VACATION SPOTS.

    And PROTECTING THE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT TO SUCH INDULGENCE is what the last 30 years of tax policy changes and skyrocketing differences in executive versus other forms of compensation HAVE BEEN ALL ABOUT.

    Government by the Rich, for the Rich. Pass the wine, let's go to the Caribbean!!

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:44pm

    this is typical leftist class warfare lying.

    Most of the wealthy in the US did not inherit it. They are self-made.

    <Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of "wealthy," and possibly "millionaire" once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by "working.">

    http://tinyurl.com/lq495z

    here is the data from a 1997 Federal Reserve Study

    <"Most of the rich are entrepreneurs, and most have earned their wealth. Inheritance accounts for about 8 percent of the net worth of these households in the aggregate. More than half have never inherited anything, and inherited wealth is less than 10 percent of total wealth for more than two-thirds of those who have.">

    http://tinyurl.com/nng2h2

    So, how do you make your charge? I suggest as usual it is just leftist class warfare and envy.

    I know over 100 millionaires. Only 2 inherited their wealth.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 8:27pm

56. Hey syfriendly, I for one like reading what you post. Don't let anti and the rest of the tighty rightys get to you, you know thats the only reason they are here.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 8:11pm

    You agree with his absurd lies?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 8:29pm

57. Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yes, you spent your life busing tables and you know over 100 millionaires all of whom are self-made. What is that, Toastmasters?

    You are so full of shit I can smell it from here (and I don't know where you are).

    Now please put the safety on that AR-15 if you insist on carrying it to political debates. Someone might lose an eye.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You rare and beautiful flower you, you Renaissance Man.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Oh, and I make my charge by walking across the living room carpet wearing a pair of slippers. Don't let me touch OOH (*ZAAP*!) ain't static electric discharge a pain!

    Now, I will admit that you are nothing if not amazing, and I leave you to your mental fantasyland as I traipse out onto the (offline) town to have a Friday evening. I assure you that I will not be bringing a "repent" sign with me and for obvious reasons YOU aren't invited.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 8:54pm

58. Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person | warn

    Sy

    Sorry to come off as an asshole but the frustration of some of the statements you take as economic fact confound me.

    You are probably a nice guy and want to get ahead and improve your lt in life but, I and anyone else who works within the system can tell you are nwhere near the system we have hear and are clueless as to how it works.

    The reason I say you are union material is because union members are designed by manipulators of the system to keep them out of it. They are told what they will be doing for X dollars and nothing else regardless of how much better they work or how more they Improve the job, it doesn't matter.

    The school systems do not teach you how to think creatively nor criticaly so you are left to be qualified for relatively low paying jobs that require no particular specialized skill.

    And you end up blaming "TheMan" or the system when you in fact were never taught how to work in it.

    There us no response to your points because your points do not hold under scrutiny, IRS tables, nor the obvious world around you. I am not being insultting, just truthful with you.

    Holding the belifs you have, which you must have been taught, are what will keep you in the "non rich" category.....forever, which is why. Sense a "no hope" streek in you.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 08/21/2009 @ 9:01pm

59. god jommama, thats what you have to do be rich? WOW, I have to go off line to contemplate that, unbelieveable, thats what it is, thats it, your last post explains it all, OK than, OK.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 9:53pm

60. I hope I am always poor, and streek is spelled streak.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 9:55pm

61. Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 8:54pm

    email me @lvliberty@msn.com and I will be happy to provide all the details you need.

    But you won't because you are just an class envy anti-American big mouth.

    You hate every one who works hard to succeed.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 9:59pm

62. You're full of shit. The rich anywhere will invest their money as the system allows. If the capital gains rate is raised here, you'll keep investing your money as if nothing happened at all. You and the rest of the investors will realize you can either put all your money in savings accounts or in a bunch of mattresses, or you can invest on the terms and conditions presented to you. You'll do so eagerly and happily. The problem is not investors, the problem is a government that is completely corrupt and executes tax and all other policies in a grotesquely imbalanced way.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 5:54pm

    Your ignorance is truly astounding....as if you know all about investor psychology and motivation.

    All investors can sit on their investments and generally avoiding selling if CG rate is too high....ever think of this? Ever wonder why CG taxes became so significant a source of Fed revenues?

    What happened when CG rates came down? People started turning over their portfolios, taking gains and paying, OMG, taxes! There are years I paid more in CG taxes than your (surely not-enough) salary!

    Do you know why the US has led in start-ups and innovation (so far)? It's precisely because the European investors don't invest in start-ups and IPOs due to their tax structure? Why does the US attract so much foreign capital, and ambitious foreign `talent'?

    You are about as dumb in economics & finance as I have ever tackled on this blog!

    Posted by Happy at 08/21/2009 @ 10:02pm

63. And thats what its all about, right happy, economics, that's your life, have a "HAPPY" life happy.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 10:08pm

64. have a "HAPPY" life happy.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 10:08pm

    Thank you, I do have just that. Eternal optimist!

    I've helped nurture a dozen young companies...most went bankrupt...but while I hate losing money, it's always a `nice' ride to take chances on new ideas and help fund the young!

    Folks like Sy will never ever come up with an idea to Go for It....his chips on the shoulder are just too big and I suspect, yours aren't much lighter.

    I have no mercy for whiners! He thinks most of the `Rich' are born with it, pure garbage. Most of the old money went into Foundations or became some `wing' of some name-brand university.

    I'm certainly not rich...actually born to plain-vanilla middle class parents......but I'd bet I'm among a 1/4 of the population, the motivated, always learning, willing-to-work/pay-the-price, spends-less-than-earns, willing-to-take-risks, etc. that hope to be 8-figure rich someday.

    Posted by Happy at 08/21/2009 @ 10:21pm

65. I hope I am always poor

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 9:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    With the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats in power, you will have nothing to worry about on that account, and if you do make any money over poverty level don't worry they will tax 100% of that just to keep you on an even keel!

    What you and most leftist desire is for all to be as miserable and empty as your lives are. You only wish others to join you!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 10:29pm

66. bigpasture-It is odd that no one can tell the difference between the left and right in the real world.If we went by what you delusional people,on both sides,say we would assume you could tell the difference right away by just looking at the person,but that cannot be done.The reason for that,of course,is because there is no difference between the two sides when it comes to emotions,the way you live,act,or much of anything else.There are tons of people on both sides who live empty and miserable lives.Misery has nothing to do with political belief.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2009 @ 10:49pm

67. Misery has nothing to do with political belief.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2009 @ 10:49pm

    Guess that means you don't think folks who complain a lot about inequality, income disparities, the rich, the corporations are generally `miserable'.

    The Right is the Personal Responsibility Party! We don't try to spread the "misery" burden like the Left/Libs!

    Posted by Happy at 08/21/2009 @ 10:55pm

68. the personal responsibility party proudly announces that all members will now be latex covered.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2009 @ 11:09pm

69. Happy-All humans complain about things.Was there a point you were trying to make?Tons of people on the right complain about those same things.You need to get out of your suburban fantasy world.On the planet Earth a right winger is just as likely to not take personal responsibility as a lefty which is another reason why no one can tell the difference between the two in the real world.You may talk different political views,but you act the same.Your party spreads misery just like the other one.Of course,if we went by your posts we would assume you could spot the lefty and righty in public because the liberals would be knee jerking and acting out emotionally while the righties acted like Mr Spock with a halo.You cannot,of course,tell the difference between the two sides by actions in public or private..You have to ask them what their politics are.Yes,there are many miserable people on both sides.There are apolitical miserable people,too.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2009 @ 11:16pm

70. TREASURY SECRETARY GRAMM CAUGHT IN TAX SCANDAL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "In recent days yet another wealthy private customer of the Swiss-based banking conglomerate UBS admitted to criminal fraud in a growing parade of perp walks that could extend into the thousands. It is a case that threatens to ensnare former Sen. Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who is vice chairman of UBS' investment banking business. Given the widespread involvement of UBS in what the Justice Department alleges were systematic efforts to violate US tax laws, it must be asked: Did Gramm as a top executive have no inkling about what was going on?"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2009 @ 11:37pm

71. The reason for that,of course,is because there is no difference between the two sides when it comes to emotions,the way you live,act,or much of anything else.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2009 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Hardly, seems most leftist here are consumed as are most materially oriented, or worldly, persons in greed and coveting that which others possess whether it be personal assests or those of stockholder owned corporations!

    Leftist worship the world just as greedily and covetously as the pure capitalist and both are eager for gain either by their own capabilities or the gain of others they believe they deserve or are entitled to a fair portion thereof!

    As for me and mine we worship God the creator and sustainer of the world and all who dwell upon it through his mediator, his son Jesus Christ.

    As I often point out to others, one of his servants and disciples taught that "I have learned to be content in what ever state I find myself"! He had been rich, powerful, and "religious" more zealously than anyone. But, when he found service for Christ God's son he possess riches no man could take from him even when in prison, persecuted, stoned, beaten, or when blessed in God's service.

    So, in one way you are correct. Emotions are found in us all, but the question is who of us has turned control of such over to the creator of them rather than ourselves who have no control, or the Evil one who would gladly use them against us or others for evil purpose.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 11:41pm

72. bigpasture-You cannot tell the difference between Christians and non Christians in the real world,either,because all worship the world and live in the world,but you just stay in your fantasy world where you believe that humans act differently in the real world and are different based upon religious or political views.No one has turned control of their emotions over to a Creator nor do you have to in order to control your emotions, as non believers prove.There are emotion driven believers and rather controlled non believers.Most non believers never do evil things while there are believers who do.We humans act in very similar ways regardless of religious or political views which is why you cannot tell the difference in the real world.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2009 @ 11:55pm

73. frei:

    http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/08/20/i mg-mg---week-in-cartoons-822--- 08_221149323800.jpg

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2009 @ 12:21am

74. "The shrinking fortunes of multi-millionaires such as McAfee will likely make it easy for Barack Obama to boast, in 2012, that he oversaw a decrease in the level of inequality"

    Stupid liberal quote of the week...did the poor get richer? no...so how did this guy losing money help in any way?

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 12:29am

75. Ever heard of living in the world and being not of the world? ( and I don't mean those without a firm grasp on reality) That is what real Christians do. We have to live here and do that which is necessary to exist within the confines of God's law and mans as long as they do not conflict. That is where the rubber meets the road, when they do conflict, and Christians are defined by their response.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/22/2009 @ 12:33am

76. "And the CAPITAL GAINS tax rate? This game the rich have played so well makes it so that someone with 50 million dollars in capital gains in a year pays a tax rate a bit over half what the 75K a year worker pays. "

    So what...maybe you missed the question that made BO fall flat on his face during the democratic primaries...it has been proven that lower tax rates lead to HIGHER revenues to government...why would he want to raises taxes? He got blind-sided with that one and had no answer...but it was fun watching the disrobing of the emperor.

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 12:36am

77. oops...Happy already took care of that point.

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 12:38am

78. god jommama, thats what you have to do be rich? WOW, I have to go off line to contemplate that, unbelieveable, thats what it is, thats it, your last post explains it all, OK than, OK.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/21/2009 @ 9:53pm

    The goal isn't always to become rich, although that is wonderful..the goal is to make something out of an idea...the journey is great..but the lefty clods are dream killers, which is why those with money tend to side line it for safety until you irresponsible spenders but low producers get voted away...

    You, the parasite class, now has the reigns of govt and are screwing up things even more than Bush...

    Entrepeneurship demands hard work, dedication, innovation, determination and an willingness to take a chance and lose it all....

    ...the journey mostly comes with no salary for years,(nope, don't get paid for senority),long hours of frustration and nights with no sleep...and then you might make...a profit, ghod forbid.

    and then an age old problem creeps into your creation...

    it is some dip shit with no experience, talent, drive or ability who comes along and wants to take the largest chunck away because he thinks you took it from some idiot who cant find his ass with both hands but just knows how to redistribute it for all the good....

    Posted by YourJomamma at 08/22/2009 @ 12:39am

79. Finally, all this bullshit about hard work you spout really has nothing to do with the reality of rich people as a body in the US, because most of those who are rich are BORN THAT WAY and NEVER HAVE TO WORK A DAY IN THEIR LIVES but LIVE IN GREAT PLACES AND PART IN LUXURIOUS VACATION SPOTS.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/21/2009 @ 7:44pm

    man are you uninformed...the largest group of millionaires are self-made...small business owners and the like...the kind of people that took a chance with their own money, ideas, and time and turned a dream into reality...why do you hate them so much?

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 12:41am

80. So, where's the part about the facts that because of his creativity, thousands of people have jobs? As of the 2008 Financials, there were 5600 employees of McAfee, with a 31.8% employee growth over 2007. What an evil man (not). Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 6:47pm |

    "Despite Strong Q4, McAfee Plans Layoffs"

    http://www.crn.com/security/ 214000181;jsessionid=F3Z0JGBAKNNLLQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN

    Yeah, he's a real prince, Anti.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 06:01am

81. Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 6:44p

    "...then what is there for you to complain about?"

    The completely uneven distribution of income in the US; a symptom of its broken economy.

    "Yet, you are complaining so I guess that means you want even more tax money out of the rich."

    No, we want a more even distribution, so the rich pay a smaller share of the tax burden (like they want?).

    "To turn over to the government so the government can waste it? And to take it away from ...opportunity creators?"

    Why do you assume that only rich people create jobs? And what do their boots taste like?

    "Don't tell me about social programs. ...with regard to aid to our own people and others in the world."

    Unless you need healthcare.

    "This includes considerable donation of both monetary resources and people's time to charitable causes. And most of those donations do far more good for those in need than government aid does."

    Proof?

    Many charities don't pass on most of the money they collect to the people they supposedly help and instead use it for exec salaries and....raising more money.

    "All most government aid ever did was to impoverish people permanently and make them wards of the state."

    A fractional millionaire ward of the state, thank you very much.

    "In many cases government programs have actually hurt people..."

    You're a loon conflating the effects of poverty with the effects of the programs enacted to fight same.

    "Just dumping more money into the Government won't resolve the issues of poverty."

    Depends how you spend it: education is the key.

    "The Government collects more tax now than it needs."

    China disagrees.

    "The wealthy pay most of the tax now, and there is no need to give the government more."

    Give back our middle-class, thieves.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 06:19am

82. Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 12:41am |

    As a `self-made' success story, I too am surprised at Sy, with whom I am usually nodding vehemently in agreement.

    I'll be the first to admit that 'self-made' is often BS...assistance from government programs, educators, and even venture capitalists often accompanies the successes of the Horatio Algiers of the US.

    And Sy would be right to point out that the more affluent have a less difficult time focusing on their entrepreneurial endeavors than poor people with two day-jobs to make their rent and/or a load of college tuition debt. Just because someone isn't handed the actual fortune it doesn't mean they aren't starting in a better position to obtain one of their own. This is a good thing, but is never mentioned when discussing their Horatio A. myths.

    He's also right about where the love has been shown in tax policy since Ronnie sent the national debt dance craze into overdrive. Those mods, plus deregulation of the finance industry, benefited bankers at the expense of taxpayers (think Silverado S&L) and made multi-million dollar salaries on WS the tres fabu thing to do.

    Correspondingly, educational assistance was gutted during the same timeframe and the costs of education skyrocketed.

    What better way to handicap upward mobility?

    Success is a three-legged stool formed from talent, effort, and opportunity. Bill Gates was blessed with 2 out of 3 and supplied the 3rd.

    "So what."

    So Warren Buffett being taxed less than I am for doing less work is insane. Even he says so.

    "it has been proven that lower tax rates lead to HIGHER revenues to government...why would he want to raises taxes?"

    Because there's more to revenue than how much you made...you need to make it SUSTAINABLY.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 07:06am

83. posted by Snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 7:06am

    Our healthcare system also is a pretty big deterrent to people going into business for themselves - especially people who have to start out from scratch (no inherited money, unwilling or unable to go into debt, etc.).

    I have read studies that show that the United States has (slightly) less upward mobility than the "socialist" countries in Europe.

    If the conservatives on here would like to understand why Mexico, a large and resource - rich country, has to depend on its citizens working in the U.S. for a significant portion of its income, just look at the inequality index for Mexico, which is off the charts, even compared to the United States.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/22/2009 @ 08:18am

84. "Sy would be right to point out that the more affluent have a less difficult time focusing on their entrepreneurial endeavors than poor people with two day-jobs to make their rent and/or a load of college tuition debt. Just because someone isn't handed the actual fortune it doesn't mean they aren't starting in a better position to obtain one of their own. "

    I could have sworn that I heard a story about a daughter of share-croppers growing up to be pretty successful...and a college drop-out, broke and rudderless, becoming one of the most recognizable (and wealthiest) voices in America...

    "He's also right about where the love has been shown in tax policy since Ronnie sent the national debt dance craze into overdrive."

    Hard to believe that the people that actually pay taxes are the ones getting the tax breaks, isn't it?

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 08:50am

85. "Correspondingly, educational assistance was gutted during the same timeframe and the costs of education skyrocketed.

    What better way to handicap upward mobility?"

    a little conspiracy theory-ish, don't ya think?

    "Success is a three-legged stool formed from talent, effort, and opportunity. Bill Gates was blessed with 2 out of 3 and supplied the 3rd. "

    were you aware that government estimates that approximately 1/3 of people eligible for Medicaid haven't signed up for it?

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 08:57am

86. "So Warren Buffett being taxed less than I am for doing less work is insane."

    why?

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 08:58am

87. Because there's more to revenue than how much you made...you need to make it SUSTAINABLY.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 07:06am

    so by punishing hard workers with higher taxes and taking money out of the pockets of honest citizens make it more sustainable?

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 08:59am

88. bigpasture-Most Christians,like the ones on here,obsess on politics and many other things that are of this world.Christians,for the most part,are just like everyone else.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/22/2009 @ 09:09am

89. The wealthy didn't get rich in a vacuum. Once the wealthy get a certain amount of leverage, they keep changing the laws to give themselves more & more advantage in society, to the detriment of people doing actual productive work. It's an increasingly more corrupt system. And the wealthy are not shy about taking advantage of government funded programs, or influencing those programs so that they are nothing more than a way to transfer wealth from the middle class to the corporate class.

    If wealth were distributed by actual useful work, family farmers would all be stinking rich & bankers would be middle class.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/22/2009 @ 10:23am

90. Posted by cdlepthien at 08/22/2009 @ 10:23am

    Do you have any understanding of an economic system called, Capitalism? Hint: Look for the root word and go from there.

    Has anyone invented or perfected systems called Laborism or Workism?

    Or, think another way, say...a person w/out money but has a degree in biomedical engineering.....does he/she have any `Capital'?

    Further, an illegal immigrant, non-English speaking, wades across the Rio Grand....does he/she possess any `Capital' at all besides selling his/her organs?

    Posted by Happy at 08/22/2009 @ 10:55am

91. This article was about the very wealthy, not the "hard-working Americans" that usex1 likes to talk about. And if the recent derivatives/credit default swaps banking cluster doesn't convince people that many wealthy people have gotten that way by gaming the system, I don't know what would.

    The right-wing dopes - or is that dupes- posting on here remind me of small ranchers who can't distinguish their interests from the interests of agri-business. It's about feeling like you are part of a culture, not about being objective about who is writing the laws and why.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/22/2009 @ 11:05am

92. bigpasture-Most Christians,like the ones on here,obsess on politics and many other things that are of this world.Christians,for the most part,are just like everyone else.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/22/2009 @ 09:09am

    do you actually think that all we think and talk about when away from this blog is politics? That certainly would be an obsession if true, but it isn't.

    As I've said before, you have some very strange ideas about both Christianity and Christians.

    We are talking politics here because this is a POLITIAL blog.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/22/2009 @ 1:12pm

93. syfriendly wrote: "For my part, I sense my own short career in blog commenting coming to an end, soon. It's not clear what doing this could ever accomplish except wasting lots of my own and others' time."

    --um, duh! does anyone here actually think they're accomplishing anything? we're anonymously commenting on a few paragraphs written by someone who gets paid to do it (but more often it turns into the same cast of anonymous characters taking up most of the commenting space bickering at each other over the same issues over and over and over...)

    anyone who thinks this is anything more than that is trying to convince themselves they aren't wasting away the gift of life. (and yes, I realize I'm also wasting away that gift too, sadly)

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2009 @ 1:57pm

94. antisocialist-You and I have the same views about Christianity so your views must be strange,too.You have delusional views about Christians.I just go by your words and actions.You state that you watch numerous political shows even in the evening,obviously read tons of stuff pertaining to current events as your posts clearly show,read blogs,spend much time blogging and looking up the things to back up your views that you post on here,etc.All of that is quite time consuming and is,obviously, what you spend most of your day concerned with..You even come on here on Sunday.You are obsessed with politics.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/22/2009 @ 2:29pm

95. so by punishing hard workers with higher taxes and taking money out of the pockets of honest citizens make it more sustainable? Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 08:59am |

    False assumption: 'hard workers'...the finance industry doesn't 'create' very much but collects beaucoup dollars (whether they do their jobs correctly or not, apparently).

    Keeping the distro of income from turning into a spindly, bubble-driven joke (think Nov 2008), most definitely would make it more sustainable (think 1945-1965).

    If the money taken out of those pockets provides education for a workforce that can move from lower, to middle, to upper-middle, to upper class, then all boats rise together.

    I've yet to see a single person in the top 1% decide to take a job for less money because of increased taxation (I know I won't).

    To pretend that those dollars are better kept in the savings accounts of a few or given to Bernie Madoff than supporting 10 college kids'' loans, helping them to become useful taxpayers, is self-defeating in the long-term.

    I'd expect nothing less of a grad of the Univ of Spoiled Children though...You're #2!

    Paid off your student loans yet?

    Mine were paid off completely, before I graduated.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 4:10pm

96. "So Warren Buffett being taxed less than I am for doing less work is insane." why? Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 08:58am |

    If the argument against welfare is that people should work for a living, then it should be consistently applied to Warren too.

    He collects billions from his share of Berkshire hedge management ...sounds like income to me and thus should be taxed as same.

    If not, then why do you care that the bottom 40% of the US doesn't pay much in taxes?

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 4:16pm

97. Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2009 @ 08:57am |

    "a little conspiracy theory-ish, don't ya think?"

    As someone who had and lost Cal and Pell grants, no, not tin-foil hat theory...inconvenient praxis.

    "were you aware that government estimates that approximately 1/3 of people eligible for Medicaid haven't signed up for it?"

    Non sequitur?

    Most of them were probably dumped on the street by Reagan...compassionate conservative is an oxymoron.

    The rest are probably teens and/or ignorant.

    So?

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 4:20pm

98. Snowball,

    I belive America needs engineers and science grads and would be willing to donate money for those types to help with their loans, but they would be required to pass on those same gifts to other science majors.

    And every ethnic , femisit studys and the like would be taxd since they oroduce nothng

    Posted by YourJomamma at 08/22/2009 @ 6:30pm

99. Posted by YourJomamma at 08/22/2009 @ 6:30pm |

    As a former comp sci starving student, I'd be tempted to agree, but I've graduated since then and come to realize that we need all kinds of critters (at least in my line of work, video games)...even humanities majors.

    You can do exactly that by creating or even partially funding a scholarship for a students in a specific field so it shouldn't be too difficult to establish loan guarantees with the same strings attached.

    As a student, I was also involved in a co-op program where a local business, Teradyne, used my budding skills for cheap dough and I got some credits. This is a very good way to make successful grads that can pay for school as they go (win-win-win).

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 8:40pm

100. I'm trying to figure out where the twits on this site figure we are headed toward government owned healthcare. There is no evidence at all of this ever happening. And a majority of people work for small businesses, many of whom do not get capital from the rich. However a large portion of those companies who do get money from the rich offshore jobs to maximize profits and others offshore profits so they don't have to pay taxes. And lastly it's so cute how people want to protect the poor rich folk even though many of the rich folk are more than willing to pay their fair share of taxes which, by the way, were much higher in the past and we still managed to grow the economy and the middle class.

     /////////////////////////////////////////

     Fox News: Never balanced, never fair but always catering to the far right, brain dead wing-nuts!

     Posted by mkpoorman at 08/22/2009 @ 9:24pm

101. mkpoorman: "...a majority of people work for small businesses, many of whom do not get capital from the rich."

     Most "small businesses" don't borrow, huh? Or if they do, the money borrowed grew on trees, right?

     mkpoorman: "....a large portion of those companies who do get money from the rich offshore jobs to maximize profits and others offshore profits so they don't have to pay taxes."

     And survival against foreign competition is never a factor to offshoring, right? Or some foreign customers demand that a certain portion of the product they buy, say a Boeing plane, must be produced in their country for jobs and technology transfer reasons? Also, did you know the US is about the only advanced country that subject its multinationals to double taxation: by the subsidiary's host country AND the US itself when profits are brought back into the US.

     mkpoorman: "...lastly it's so cute how people want to protect the poor rich folk even though many of the rich folk are more than willing to pay their fair share of taxes which, by the way, were much higher in the past and we still managed to grow the economy and the middle class."

     Most rich folks already consider themselves paying MORE than their "fair share". For those "many" you think are willing to pay more, absolutely NOTHING stands in their way to pay more. Just in case you don't get it, it's NOT ILLEGAL to pay more than what the tax codes require!!!!

     mkpoorman: "Fox News: Never balanced, never fair but always catering to the far right, brain dead wing-nuts!"

     Like Rush Limbaugh, without you Loons and your Legacy Media (can't really call them mainstream anymore since they are dying, and dying is never a `mainstream' favorite) , FOX wouldn't be laughing all the way to the bank....so, who are the true "brain dead"?

     Posted by Happy at 08/22/2009 @ 9:55pm

102. Do you have any understanding of an economic system called, Capitalism? Hint: Look for the root word and go from there.

     Has anyone invented or perfected systems called Laborism or Workism? Hap

     You may say whatever you want about capitalism, but the real factor creating capital is human labor, creativeness, ingenuity, and intelligence. That is the one factor that creates added value but is never remunerated enough and the capitalist pockets the margin. The one and only factor that creates retribution on capital is risk, but today those 'so called risks' are seldom there or minimized through different ventures.

     Altogether making money in the stock exchange is even immoral because it is like gambling most of the time with money of 3rd persons. Or it is using privileged information that only a privileged group of people have to take advantage of the rest of the society. That is NOT real work.

     In sum, the system as it is now will only make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Except a very few group of creative entrepreneurs (i.e. Bill Gates or the Google people) most of the rich use only their leverage to raise more money. The only partial remedy to that is TAXING which transfers a fraction of the wealth to the poor.

     My point is therefore that a capitalist society is seldom good enough if government does not intervene with regulations and taxing. If not, it would be the "law of the jungle" as it is now in so many fields, i.e. housing inflation and speculation.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/22/2009 @ 10:31pm

103. "So Warren Buffett being taxed less than I am for doing less work is insane. Even he says so. "it has been proven that lower tax rates lead to HIGHER revenues to government...why would he want to raises taxes?" Because there's more to revenue than how much you made...you need to make it SUSTAINABLY." Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 07:06am

     Actually, Buffett earned a salary of $100,000 in 2008. That's $100,000. So, if you made more than that, then yes, you paid more in income tax. He also made 75,000 from serving on corporation boards.

     He is worth quite a few billion, but right now, the government doesn't tax our assets every year, so he does not pay tax on his net worth. He does not "collect billions" from Berkshire-Hathaway. That worth came from his work in building that company up. Without government help.

     Posted by twillie at 08/23/2009 @ 12:18am

104. The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats bring you "Change to Unemployment you can believe in" and "The Hopelessness of the new $9,000,000,000,000 national debt". (which of course will be made even worse by socialist healthcare) Time for a "recall" election proposition.

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/23/2009 @ 01:12am

105. "As someone who had and lost Cal and Pell grants, no, not tin-foil hat theory...inconvenient praxis."

     And you think that was because the government wanted to "keep you down?" what...have you started drinking the K00lAid out of your tinfoil hat now?

     "were you aware that government estimates that approximately 1/3 of people eligible for Medicaid haven't signed up for it?"

     Non sequitur?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 4:20pm

     Not a non-sequitur...a larger point in the making...that is...the opportunities are there but you have to have the motivation, determination to make it happen and take advantage...alot of times you don't even have to have the most talent...hard work makes up for a lot...

     Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 06:33am

106. Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 4:16pm

     Twillie took care of the misinfo your spreading...but you still didn't answer my question...

     WHY?

     Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 06:36am

107. "False assumption: 'hard workers'...the finance industry doesn't 'create' very much but collects beaucoup dollars (whether they do their jobs correctly or not, apparently). "

     I keep forgetting that you guys "feel"*** that investors don't do any actual work...maybe you think that all that money people save should be given to government to invest???

     ***I say "feel" because you're obviously not thinking

     "Keeping the distro of income from turning into a spindly, bubble-driven joke (think Nov 2008), most definitely would make it more sustainable (think 1945-1965). "

     By giving it to government? No thanks...We (my wife and I) give enough already...

     "If the money taken out of those pockets provides education for a workforce that can move from lower, to middle, to upper-middle, to upper class, then all boats rise together. "

     Ah...but it doesn't...how many times do we have to point out that higher taxes leads to DECREASED revenue to government? Plus...Our own capital (D.C.) school system is proof that throwing worse money after bad is not raising any boats...(Where did BO send his kids to school again...public or private?)

     "I've yet to see a single person in the top 1% decide to take a job for less money because of increased taxation (I know I won't). "

     We're not talking about bankers becoming janitors...we're talking about decrease3d incentive...as an example when taxes reach a certain point it no longer makes sense for me to keep working...I'll retire and four people will be out of work...but in your world those people will have jobs "MAGICALLY" appear...(with apologies to Happy)

     Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 06:53am

108. "To pretend that those dollars are better kept in the savings accounts of a few or given to Bernie Madoff than supporting 10 college kids'' loans, helping them to become useful taxpayers, is self-defeating in the long-term."

     um...wow...fact is once the money has been EARNED it isn't any of your business what they do with it...save, invest, spend frivolously...NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS...

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 4:10pm

     Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:00am

109. mkpoorman wrote: I'm trying to figure out where the twits on this site figure we are headed toward government owned healthcare.

     Well, the President himself said before this is what he would like to ultimately see in this country. And he's invested a lot of political capital in this reform. Now it appears he's even invested taxpayer money in a private firm sending out emails to push a partisan Democrat agenda. I do not think he would do so if this plan doesn't put us on the road to socialist medicine. Things like this are done incrementally. Not in one fell swoop.

     Suppose I'm a small business owner employing 150 people and providing them healthcare as a benefit. Suppose I make about $250,000 a year. I'm now going to have my individual income taxed higher to pay for a government plan that I am not personally using, nor are my employees. So I'm paying for healthcare twice. How long do you think I'm going to do that before I end my private plan and shuffle my employees off to the government plan? Or do you think I should disregard margins and profitability and continue to pay for healcare twice just because that would be "nicer"?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/23/2009 @ 07:11am

110. Posted by twillie at 08/23/2009 @ 12:18am |

     "Actually, Buffett earned a salary of $100,000 in 2008. That's $100,000. So, if you made more than that, then yes, you paid more in income tax. He also made 75,000 from serving on corporation boards."

     Well, yeah, I did, but that wasn't his only income (or mine).

     "He is worth quite a few billion, but right now, the government doesn't tax our assets every year, so he does not pay tax on his net worth. He does not 'collect billions' from Berkshire-Hathaway. That worth came from his work in building that company up. Without government help."

     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

     "Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

     Hedge managers make a percentage of the profits earned by the fund over the year and are taxed at less than income rates. Billions was an overstatement, but Mr. Buffett is pulling down considerably more than 100k per year.

     Unlike USC1, he can tell that this is not good for our economy over the long term.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:21am

111. Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 06:36am |

     I can't help it if your over-priced private education has left you unable to think. Ask for a refund.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:23am

112. Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 06:53am |

     "I keep forgetting that you guys "feel"*** that investors don't do any actual work...maybe you think that all that money people save should be given to government to invest??? ***I say "feel" because you're obviously not thinking"

     No, AS AN INVESTOR, I know that making trades and planning strategies is MUCH easier than almost any job I've had in my lifetime.

     "By giving it to government? No thanks...We (my wife and I) give enough already..."

     No, by having a histo chart of incomes in the US that doesn't have two lobes at either end and a giant hole in the middle. In a perfect world, the distro would be Gaussian and tax rates would be flat.

     "Ah...but it doesn't...how many times do we have to point out that higher taxes leads to DECREASED revenue to government?"

     You can 'point it out', but that won't make your homilies true.

     "I've yet to see a single person in the top 1% decide to take a job for less money because of increased taxation (I know I won't). "

     "We're not talking about bankers becoming janitors...we're talking about decrease3d incentive..."

     The high salaries aren't incentive enough? The first 200k before you start paying serious rates isn't enough? Please.

     "as an example when taxes reach a certain point it no longer makes sense for me to keep working..."

     Sure, that point is 100%.

     "I'll retire and four people will be out of work...but in your world those people will have jobs..."

     If you retire, then someone who graduated with government assistance can take your place and those jobs would be fine. In fact, there might be more money left around for bonuses for the 4 employees.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:38am

113. Posted by BigPasture at 08/23/2009 @ 01:12am |

     What's that?

     You say your diaper smells like poop?

     And you don't like it?

     What could be done to prevent that?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:53am

114. My friends and fellow Americans keep in mind. Many people in our great country benefit from the way things are. They do not want change they like it the way it is. A pharmaceutical company holding a patent on a foul chemical drug. They are allowed (thanks to Bush) to charge anything they feel is right, and yes they are greedy. Think of the small loan companies that charges a thousand percent (thanks to Bush) the pill pushers charge more than that.

     Like the man said the present system is not sustainable. In other words we can no longer carry the cost of heath care as we know it on the backs of the middle class. What is left of the middle class (thanks to Bush). We really don't have a middle class any more. We have a husband and wife or couple working hard to allow them to pay the bills and live week to week. Heaven forbid they should get sick. They could lose everything they have worked so hard for. Three families are forced into bankruptcy every second over medical bills they cannot afford to pay.

     We must pass health care as a human right!! Then we will work on ending the War On US (drugs) the most successful racist con game in history. I am 60 retired a former volunteer during Nam. I have no reason to lie I am high on life and helping our country. Our lawmakers enslave almost one million fellow Americans every year using 100 billion of our money to sustain a war on US!! It is time to stop wasting all our money putting kids and old men in jail. Lets tell the truth cannabis is less harmful than beer. But our liquor producers pay our lawmakers millions to continue to destroy mainly young, non-violent people of color ever year. Putting them on a road many of them continue to follow. After all once you are a felon it is tough to make it in our society...

     CFHJ

     Posted by Cherokee.Fred.Jesus at 08/23/2009 @ 07:54am

115. Some interesting stuff on the top 0.1% and how much they really 'pay' for things like SS/Medicare/etc relative to their incomes.

     http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0605-01.htm

     <Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.>

     So quit your damn crying, wussies.

     <But some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and ultimately stifle economic growth by putting too much of the nation's capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators.

     Speaking of the increasing concentration of incomes, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, warned in Congressional testimony a year ago: "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow it to happen.">

     From the horsie's mouth.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 08:50am

116. And isn't it nice you had that choice Mask?

     Too bad we won't have that option at all once our health care system is a government run monopoly.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I can't wait. We are being crushed by the greedy abuse of a tiny number of elitists engaging in a price fixing schemes and total elan when managing costs for the insured resulting in millions of people suffering needlessly in the wealthiest nation on earth. They make their profits by forcing doctors to not treat people while maintaining 30% administration costs, while Medicare has a 4% administration cost. They have failed to deliver. If you defend that practice then you are a psychopath. Saying that the federal government doesn't do a good job is the same as saying that the American people don't do a good job. I'm losing patience with your kind in a big way.

     Posted by Milhaus at 08/23/2009 @ 09:44am

117. #

     But, but, but we are going to tax the Rich to pay for all the "tax and spend" programs leftist Demoncrats are printing money for? So what now; OOOOH..... I get it now you are going to tax heavily the rest of us and consume 50% of the GDP so all will be poor and dependent on the nanny state!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Do you get paid per post, or is it more of a 9-5 job? Do you understand what dumb asses you guys sound like when you say tax and spend? That's what pooled resources like governments do, they collect a small amount of those resources (money) from each person and use the leveraged buying power to give large scale benefits like all of the services we have that stop us from being Somalia. If you only spend the money that comes in from the taxes, then the books balance. It's called fiscal responsibility, A.K.A. Clinton's presidency, he left us with balanced books. He did his duty. Instead, republicans spend money like an idiot tornado until the coffers are empty handing out bloated sweetheart contracts to their friends, then borrow trillions from foreign governments that we are in direct competition against for years on end like Bush did, until we are stuck with his $11 trillion deficit. PLUS another $1 trillion deficit PER YEAR to honor all of the giveaways and no-bid backdoor deals he made. Hopefully it will take less than 30 years for our economy to recover. In the mean time our competition is gaining leadership on every front, especially the Europeans. They all have "socialized" medicine and their currency is worth more than ours. So don't even try it. Nations around the world are getting rid of the dollar now and buying Euros. We need to take control of our fate, health care is a good start.

     Posted by Milhaus at 08/23/2009 @ 10:04am

118. I can't help it if your over-priced private education has left you unable to think. Ask for a refund.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:23am

     You can't answer a simple question...and think I should ask for a refund?!? Ball is still in your court...

     Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 1:16pm

119. "No, AS AN INVESTOR, I know that making trades and planning strategies is MUCH easier than almost any job I've had in my lifetime. "

     And your point is what? that you were pretty useless? is that what your clients thought of you? judging from your answers here, I don't doubt it.

     "No, by having a histo chart of incomes in the US that doesn't have two lobes at either end and a giant hole in the middle. In a perfect world, the distro would be Gaussian and tax rates would be flat."

     But thankfully, for the most part income gets distributed based on what value we give the job...

     "You can 'point it out', but that won't make your homilies true."

     Can't disagree...fortunately history makes it true...

     "The high salaries aren't incentive enough? The first 200k before you start paying serious rates isn't enough? Please. "

     Um...first, when did you get to decide what "serious" rates are? second, when government is taking more than its "fair share" well, that "high salary" ain't so high after all...see below

     "If you retire, then someone who graduated with government assistance can take your place and those jobs would be fine. In fact, there might be more money left around for bonuses for the 4 employees."

     actually, I'm talking about people doing things around the house that I can't do because I'm working...not to mention tother employees that will be out of work...and when thousands more people make those kind of cost/benefit/reward decisions...there won't be enough producers left to hire everyone losing their jobs..

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:38am

     Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 1:36pm

120. ?snowball? said this: "....I know that making trades and planning strategies is MUCH easier than almost any job I've had in my lifetime. "

     Making trades today is certainly easy.....from clicking on your brokerage site, signing in, go to the "Trade" tab, type in symbol, no. of shares, type of trades, reinvest dividend or not and then a final order review & click, it's done; except not-at-market orders. Can be done in 30 seconds.

     Strategies can be as easy as whatever Jim Crammer or some other sage says or one's typical reaction to say, the price of oil and its pricing direction.

     Isn't it amazing for something so EASY, most folks, including stock-picking fund managers, under perform the market indexes!

     Whether a job is easy in a physical or mental sense, doesn't amount to piddly squat! Playing Chess is all mental while ditch digging is all physical....both really, really hard. Big deal if one never wins in chess or the ditch can be dug with an idle CAT next to the ditch that the digger doesn't know how to operate!

     Results are all that matter. Snowball ought to ask himself, in how many HARD jobs he's had, he could lose oodles of HIS OWN MONEY while being paid a salary to work!

     Posted by Happy at 08/23/2009 @ 2:10pm

121. Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 1:36pm |

     "And your point is what? that you were pretty useless?..."

     I invest for myself only, and made money last year.

     I write software for income and do quite nicely, working from home as an independent contractor.

     "But thankfully, for the most part income gets distributed based on what value we give the job..."

     Bonuses to Citibank, Bank of Lynching America, and JP Morgan Chase employees who caused the biggest liquidity freeze up in history? Oh yeah, money well spent on those quants...boffo.

     "Can't disagree...fortunately history makes it true..."

     Proof? I've pointed out the time in history when tax rates were high and we had decent growth.

     "Um...first, when did you get to decide what "serious" rates are?..."

     'Serious' is short-hand for one end of the spectrum.

     "actually, I'm talking about people doing things around the house that I can't do because I'm working..."

     So if we don't have the castles, the entire feudal system is at risk of unemployment? Egads!

     I'll accept as an axiom that reducing taxation can encourage (not guarantee, mind you) growth, but what I see is casino capitalism that shows huge, phantom gains for a few over the short-term before it falls on its face in recessions just like this one.

     If you lose your job, the same 4 are unemployed and Milton Friedman won't even loan you lunch money, the jerk.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 2:41pm

122. Oops, not so fast, snowball. This is from Greg mankiw blogspot (harvard econ professor):

     "You might wonder how Mr Buffett managed such a low tax rate. Most likely, it arose because corporate dividends and capital gains are taxed at only 15 percent. But the corporate income that funded those returns was already taxed at the corporate level, where the tax rate is 35 percent. Mr Buffett seems to be ignoring the first round of taxation. Is it possible that the world's most successful has failed to pierce the corporate veil? (If you want to more reliable data on the progressivity of the tax code, see this old post for numbers from the CBO.)

     Even more striking to me is a fact that Mr Buffett did not emphasize: how low his taxable income is. His income of $46 million represents a mere 0.1 percent of his reported net worth of over $50 billion. That is not an impressive rate of return!

     Why is it so low? I can think of at least four possible ways investors like Mr Buffet can keep their taxable income, as opposed to their true income, low:

     They hold stocks that pay minimal dividends.

     They avoid realizing capital gains.

     They hold some of their portfolios in tax-free municipal bonds. They give appreciated assets to charity, getting a deduction for the current market value without ever having to realize and pay tax on the capital gain.

     Notice that raising tax rates, as Mr Buffett seems to want to do, would not much affect any of these tax avoidance strategies. Even if tax rates were raised substantially, the tax savvy Mr Buffet probably wouldn't be paying much in taxes as a proportion of his wealth or as a proportion of his true income."

     FYI, snowball. Buffett is not a hedge fund manager. His company buys other companies that are well run, he holds them, stays out

     Posted by twillie at 08/23/2009 @ 7:44pm

123. of their way, and provides his considerable expertise and direction when needed.

     Posted by twillie at 08/23/2009 @ 7:46pm

124. Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:21am

     If Buffett said that about his secretary, he is either badly misinformed about Individual Income tax rates or he lied.

     Let's use Tax Year 2006 and let's take a worst case scenario. Let's say she is single with no dependents, and rents an apartment. She files 1040-EZ with the standard deduction. That makes her taxable income $51550. The tax table shows a tax liability of $9439 which is a tax rate of 16 percent.

     Also, I'm sure what Buffett has done is is to draw a minimal salary. He certainly did not have a taxable income of more than $55-$60k.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:18pm

125. A little bit of perspective to counter all of the class envy from some of the left here.

     You know who you are, who claim that the rich only think of themselves.

     <Very rich people -- those with net assets of more than $50-million -- gave 10 times as much on average as those with a net worth of between $5-million and $50-million. They gave the most to foundations and other grant-making funds (34.4 percent), health charities (20.5 percent), and education groups (14.8 percent). Education groups, religious organizations, foundations, donor-advised funds, and trusts were the most popular causes supported by all wealthy donors.

     Many wealthy donors shared a desire to give time, not just money. More than 80 percent of those surveyed volunteered in some capacity.

     People with net assets of more than $50-million gave more hours on average than their less-wealthy peers. Nearly 37 percent spent more than 200 hours a year doing volunteer work, while 26 percent of people with between $1-million and $5-million in assets devoted that much time to volunteering.

     The very rich, however, were slightly more influenced by tax laws than their less-wealthy peers. More than 15 percent of very wealthy people said they would "dramatically decrease" their charitable giving if they didn't receive any income-tax deductions for their donations, compared with about 7 percent of people with between $5-million and $50-million in assets.>

     http://tinyurl.com/mnph3p

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:46pm

126. Some additional data on the wealthy

     <The Reagan years, with reduced taxes and a deregulated economy, produced a flood of new millionaires. "President Reagan stated that he wanted America to remain a country in which people could dare to be rich." Moreover, "the computer geeks of Silicon Valley pioneered productivity miracles and also embodied ‘American values of meritocracy and democracy, earning big rewards for their innovations and scattering stock options among their employees.' "

     Samuel adds that, "Less than 10% of today's rich inherited their wealth."

     http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/?p=38171

     <Among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets tend to have lower rates of giving. In charitable giving as a percentage of GDP, nations with cradle-to-grave welfare systems rank far down the Johns Hopkins list: Sweden 18th, France 21st, Germany 32nd.>

     http://tinyurl.com/kuyvt4

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 9:03pm

127. Oh and here's a little comparison between the savior Obama and the "evil" Dick Cheney

     Obama is a miser on charity and the Cheneys are extremely generous.

     <After Mr. and Mrs. Obama released their tax returns, the press quickly noticed that, between 2000 and 2004, they gave less than one percent of their income to charity, far lower than the national average. Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006

     The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama's book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2005, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney's books and the couple's investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)>

     http://tinyurl.com/2dqhdo

     Let's see, 1% all the way up to 6% for the Obama's.

     Cheney 78%

     Real close comparison

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 9:06pm

128. Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:18pm |

     Aren't you the one so fond of pointing out OASDI, Medicare, state taxes, prop taxes, etc?

     And I'd be surprised if he isn't employing someone with kids who has been with him for years (seems like his style).

     Buffet's salary is apparently $100k, established above, but we're talking about his entire taxable income, 99.7% of which is from cap gains, taxed at 15%.

     Posted by twillie at 08/23/2009 @ 7:46pm |

     You're correct. BH holds a big portfolio, but it's their money, not other's, in play. Everyone making huge cap gains is a hedgie in my head.

     Buffett is not arguing that income taxes need to be raised, but that cap gains taxes shouldn't be so much lower than the equivalent rates for working stiffs.

     Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2009 @ 1:16pm |

     Asked and answered (by Buffett and Greenspan) -- Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 08:50am |

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:45pm

129. Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:46pm |

     It's a little easier to make time in your schedule when you're not saddled with a day-job, Anti.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:48pm

130. Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 9:06pm |

     How much of that money was from the stock that Dick `forgot' to sell when he took office?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:49pm

131. Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 9:03pm |

     So you're penalizing socialist-icalish countries for...having less needy people?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:51pm

132. How much of that money was from the stock that Dick `forgot' to sell when he took office?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:49pm

     Can't even bring your self to acknowledge that Cheney is far more giving than Obama and in fact is far more giving than most people.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 10:54pm

133. Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 10:54pm |

     "It appears that the VP is a major beneficiary of the Hurricane Katrina tax relief act. In particular, he claimed $6.8 million of charitable deductions, which is 77% of his AGI -- well in excess of the 50% limitation that would have applied absent the Katrina legislation.

     The press release indicates that the charitable contribution reflects the amount of net proceeds from an INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR'S EXERCISE of the VP's Halliburton options -- apparently, the VP had agreed back in 2001 that he would donate the net proceeds from the options to charities once they were exercised."

     Don't pat yourself on the back too much, might hurt yourself.

     It wasn't Cheney's choice.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:55pm

134. Don't pat yourself on the back too much, might hurt yourself.

     It wasn't Cheney's choice.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:55pm

     You're demonstrating all of the worst traits of liberalism. Despising those who give instead of paying high taxes.

     Sorry Snow, I have no respect for the things you're saying

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 11:34pm

135. "Can't even bring your self to acknowledge that Cheney is far more giving than Obama and in fact is far more giving than most people."

     (quote of the century)

     and the same speaker could utter similar inanities in the form of "it's unconstitutional to lower health premiums by making sure everyone is covered" because, well, some old, dead, white, rich, powerful slaveowner said (ironically) that taking care of people was illegal.

     the fraudulent christian strikes with each posting....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/24/2009 @ 01:30am

136. "The economist Emmanuel Saez recently crunched the numbers and found that, between 1993 and 2006, roughly half of overall income growth in the United States went to the top 1 percent of all families. During the expansion overseen by George W. Bush, "the top 1 percent captured almost three-quarters of income growth." This was great for ordinary Americans, Republicans told us at the time. Except that it wasn't. According to Saez, real income for Americans in the bottom 99 percent increased by just 1.1 percent per year between 1993 and 2006. During the Bush expansion, it fell below 1 percent per year."

     I always thought it was shitty, the way the Bolshevists shot the Tsar's family. But now I'm starting to understand....

     Just kidding.

     Kinda.

     Posted by KevinRiley at 08/24/2009 @ 03:07am

137. BTW....the NASA question always trips them up.

     By their OWN standard, it would be "un-Constitutional domesitic spending"...since obviously it's not a "road" or "the Erie Canal".

     They usually try to imply that landing on the Moon was "national defense"...but if they want to try to stretch THAT point, then it simply means a liberal could stretch "interstate commerce" to include universal health care...since health care service would be a tangential aspect of "commerce" and thus fall under the purview of the Fed under "interstate commerce."

     Even our most vehement libertarians like Larry/antisoc and FREI....aren't opposed to NASA...which means they too will "shade" their "principles" in favor of something they approve of.

     Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 08:28am

138. Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 11:34pm |

     I'm crushed, truly.

     Matthew 6:2

     "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/24/2009 @ 09:29am

139. Posted by snowball777 at 08/24/2009 @ 09:29am

     I believe Larry will claim he was "defending himself"...not "sounding a trumpet."

     Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 09:47am

140. Posted by snowball777 at 08/24/2009 @ 09:29am | ignore this person | warn this person

     see Maimonides for the highest form of charity.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/24/2009 @ 10:31am

141. Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 1:58pm

     Mask, both Norton and McAfee really are not the best choices out there. You have to pay for those..

     You might try Avast!, it's a free program unless you want the Professional version then it's a one time pay thing. It beats McAfee and Norton hands down.

     I run Avast! (the free version) and also "Malwarebytes Anti-Malware", Malwarebytes is a phenomenal program. It will kill anything. I even have it as a standalone program for Virus and Malware on a couple computers. It is also free. I have never had a problem since.

     Just an FYI..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 10:37am

142. Too bad we won't have that option at all once our health care system is a government run monopoly.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:05pm

     A government run monopoly would reguire the government to make it illegal for private for profit health insurance companies to compete for business in the marketplace. This is not the case in either the public option or the single payer legislation (HR 676) that is currently on the table.

     Why is it so typical that the schills for the corporations continue to spread lies and disinformation?

     This sort of behaviour is detestable and shameful. It shows a complete lack of concern for the future of our nation. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you are not, then you should seek some help with your antisocial psychopathic personality.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 10:55am

143. Just an FYI..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 10:37am

     Thanks for the tip.

     Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 11:25am

144. "Too bad we won't have that option at all once our health care system is a government run monopoly."

     evidence of why talking to republicans is impossible.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/24/2009 @ 11:37am

145. even countries with single payer have a private insurance industry.

     they must be saving the smart neocons for their own rabid blogs, as we ain't got any.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/24/2009 @ 11:46am

146. But, but, but we are going to tax the Rich Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 2:07pm

     Damn right!

     The obscenely wealthy have had quite a run of it for most of the last 30 years. And destroyed our economy in the process. Time to pay the piper. When the progressive tax rate structure falls below the percentage necessary to prevent the rise of generational wealth and the establishment of a ruling elite class, the average person is screwed.

     We run the danger of becoming a Feudalist society of Lords, Vassals and Fiefs. Or worse.

     This is a system where everyone must accept their place, and social and economic mobilty is impossible.

     Buy enforcing things like the Sherman Anti Trust Act and rolling back both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy we could have a society that reduces inequality and strenghthens the middle class.

     We could completely pay for Healthcare for every man, woman and child in the country if we only rolled back the Reagan and Bush taxcuts for the wealthy and removed the cap on Social Security.

     This is not as complicated as it is made out to be. A single payer system is the most efficient way to approach the Healthcare Crisis.

     You have to ask yourself, "Why is this this being made to seem so complex"?

     Anyone who is muddying the water on this subject is your enemy. Who profits from making a simple solution, so confusing?

     That is your enemy. I'm not a Democrat. Or a Republican. I'm just a simple truth seeking Buddhist.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 11:49am

147. Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 11:49am

     chaos, BP is a perfect example of "becoming what you hate".

     Which I'm sure has some Buddhist analogy.

     Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 12:52pm

148. Panetta Threatens to Quit Over CIA Probe

     Monday, August 24, 2009 1:51 PM

     The move to prosecute CIA officers for their conduct during the war on terrorism is threatening to throw President Obama's national security team into turmoil – beginning with the possible resignation of CIA Director Leon Panetta.

     Panetta engaged in a "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House, according to ABC News.com, over a plan by Attorney General Eric Holder to launch an investigation over the treatment of detainees captured in Afghanistan and other countries. At issue is how far officers should have gone in their interrogation of such terrorists as the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing.

     The threat to investigate the nation's frontline spies comes after Panetta took on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her comments that she had never been brief regarding harsh interrogation techniques being used against Al-Qaida members. Panetta sided with his team and the written record in insisting that she had been briefed.

     "You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year," a senior adviser to Obama on intelligence matters told ABCNews.com.

     "It would be a shame if such as talented a Washington hand as Panetta were to leave after one year," said Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant who worked on the national security team for the Clinton and Bush administrations and served as an adviser to President-elect Obama.

     This is GREAT news! The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats plan to "drive a stake "through their own evil hearts! this administratian hasn't even been in power one year and they are self destructing faster than "crap through a goose" as Grandma used to say!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/24/2009 @ 1:57pm

149. Let's see, 1% all the way up to 6% for the Obama's.

     Cheney 78%

     Real close comparison

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 9:06pm

     Your numbers are biased in that they are based off of annual salary (not factoring for expenses). A more realistic approach would be to look at NET worth. With Obama's being between 1 and 7 million and Cheney's being between 30 and 100 million (2007 numbers), your percentages change drastically, and the two are not as far apart as you suggest.

     Posted by Extraneous at 08/24/2009 @ 2:18pm

150. Oddly enough there is a band called "Become What You Hate".

     But to be honest, I know of no Buddhist analogy to that.

     Overcoming suffering in oneself and increasing understanding of oneself and discovering reality is usually the goal of Buddhist thought.

     I don't see how hate could have any play there. Usually if a person has reached the point that they are even attracted to a Buddhist philosophy they have already shed things like "Hate".

     Buddhist teachings usually revolve around methods to overcome suffering. Buddha taught that we suffer because of things such as Stupidity, Anger and the Desire to possess.

     I suffer from all those things, as I am human. The Buddha taught a philosophy of no harm. And Moderation in all things in order to achieve balance.

     Sadly, due to my various faults. I remain a victim of Samsara.

     But time will tell. and there is an abundance of Time.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 2:21pm

151. Posted by BigPasture at 08/24/2009 @ 1:57pm

     See what I mean?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 2:31pm

152. because, well, some old, dead, white, rich, powerful slaveowner said (ironically) that taking care of people was illegal.

     the fraudulent christian strikes with each posting....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/24/2009 @ 01:30am

     Darla's just another leftist who hates the constitution.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:52pm

153. We could completely pay for Healthcare for every man, woman and child in the country if we only rolled back the Reagan and Bush taxcuts for the wealthy and removed the cap on Social Security.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 11:49am

     Healthcare for every man, woman and child in the country = approx $2.4T

     roll back tax cuts= ?? $

     remove cap on SS = ?? $

     Show us the math.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 2:56pm

154. Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 2:56pm

     We could have saved GM dumping the union contracts that were putting the cars out of finacial sense when compared to the other competition.

     Idiots like Chao believe the economy is a static pie...when all know it is dynamic and constantly changing and growing...

     when you get people like this mind set who see it as a zero sum game, you have no choice but to put them in a union and seal their income and tell them they are getting screwed by the "rich"..

     this serves 2 purposes..

     1. You have a guarenteed acces to their pay check, control their unions and get their vote regardless...

     2. You keep them out of the way and stupid, while convicing them the Pelsosi, Kennedy, Soros, and Dashele types are "good Millionares" who care about them and can relate to them.

     aLL THE WHILE FED eX AND uPS DO THE HEAVY LIFTING FOR THE po AND cHAO DELIVERS ADS AND JUNK MAIL,ie spam, AND THINKS HE IS CARRYING HIS "SHARE"....

     And the Post Office is a perfect example.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 3:04pm

155. Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 2:56pm

     We could have saved GM dumping the union contracts that were putting the cars out of finacial sense when compared to the other competition.

     Idiots like Chao believe the economy is a static pie...when all know it is dynamic and constantly changing and growing...

     when you get people like this mind set who see it as a zero sum game, you have no choice but to put them in a union and seal their income and tell them they are getting screwed by the "rich"..

     this serves 2 purposes..

     1. You have a guarenteed acces to their pay check, control their unions and get their vote regardless...

     2. You keep them out of the way and stupid, while convicing them the Pelsosi, Kennedy, Soros, and Dashele types are "good Millionares" who care about them and can relate to them.

     aLL THE WHILE FED eX AND uPS DO THE HEAVY LIFTING FOR THE po AND cHAO DELIVERS ADS AND JUNK MAIL,ie spam, AND THINKS HE IS CARRYING HIS "SHARE"....

     And the Post Office is a perfect example.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 3:04pm

156. Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 2:56pm

     We could have saved GM dumping the union contracts that were putting the cars out of finacial sense when compared to the other competition.

     Idiots like Chao believe the economy is a static pie...when all know it is dynamic and constantly changing and growing...

     when you get people like this mind set who see it as a zero sum game, you have no choice but to put them in a union and seal their income and tell them they are getting screwed by the "rich"..

     this serves 2 purposes..

     1. You have a guarenteed acces to their pay check, control their unions and get their vote regardless...

     2. You keep them out of the way and stupid, while convicing them the Pelsosi, Kennedy, Soros, and Dashele types are "good Millionares" who care about them and can relate to them.

     aLL THE WHILE FED eX AND uPS DO THE HEAVY LIFTING FOR THE po AND cHAO DELIVERS ADS AND JUNK MAIL,ie spam, AND THINKS HE IS CARRYING HIS "SHARE"....

     And the Post Office is a perfect example.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 3:04pm

157. Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 2:56pm

     We could have saved GM dumping the union contracts that were putting the cars out of finacial sense when compared to the other competition.

     Idiots like Chao believe the economy is a static pie...when all know it is dynamic and constantly changing and growing...

     when you get people like this mind set who see it as a zero sum game, you have no choice but to put them in a union and seal their income and tell them they are getting screwed by the "rich"..

     this serves 2 purposes..

     1. You have a guarenteed acces to their pay check, control their unions and get their vote regardless...

     2. You keep them out of the way and stupid, while convicing them the Pelsosi, Kennedy, Soros, and Dashele types are "good Millionares" who care about them and can relate to them.

     aLL THE WHILE FED eX AND uPS DO THE HEAVY LIFTING FOR THE po AND cHAO DELIVERS ADS AND JUNK MAIL,ie spam, AND THINKS HE IS CARRYING HIS "SHARE"....

     And the Post Office is a perfect example.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 3:04pm

158. Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 2:56pm

     We could have saved GM dumping the union contracts that were putting the cars out of finacial sense when compared to the other competition.

     Idiots like Chao believe the economy is a static pie...when all know it is dynamic and constantly changing and growing...

     when you get people like this mind set who see it as a zero sum game, you have no choice but to put them in a union and seal their income and tell them they are getting screwed by the "rich"..

     this serves 2 purposes..

     1. You have a guarenteed acces to their pay check, control their unions and get their vote regardless...

     2. You keep them out of the way and stupid, while convicing them the Pelsosi, Kennedy, Soros, and Dashele types are "good Millionares" who care about them and can relate to them.

     aLL THE WHILE FED eX AND uPS DO THE HEAVY LIFTING FOR THE po AND cHAO DELIVERS ADS AND JUNK MAIL,ie spam, AND THINKS HE IS CARRYING HIS "SHARE"....

     And the Post Office is a perfect example.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 3:04pm

159. Have no idea why multiple post, but I apologise any way.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 3:06pm

160. Darla's just another leftist who hates the constitution.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:52pm

     What? In your small world anyone who disagrees with you either hates your narrow version of the "Constitution" or is a Marxist.

     Does this send up any red flags in your obviously diseased brain? If it does not you are a lost cause.

     "Just another Leftist"? How do you manage to lump people into a pile of black and white without even recognizing any nuance?

     I could never imagine living in your head of willful intolerance. Your narrow minded view of the world must get really cramped after awhile.

     Since the majority of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution in the first place would be considered "intolerable" lefties by your measure.

     I wonder how you rationalize the contradiction.

     I actually have parchment paper life sized and well framed versions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence proudly displayed in my living room.

     And I am most likely the most far left "leftie" that posts here.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 3:14pm

161. posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 2:56pm

     That's $6000 per person, which is an outrageous figure. My guess is that it includes the entire insurance apparatus. And I'm sure it includes the massively overpriced hospital & doctors visits that result from the circular scam that we call a health care system, a scam which produces quite a few of the superrich.

     Posted by cdlepthien at 08/24/2009 @ 3:16pm

162. Sorry, $8000

     Posted by cdlepthien at 08/24/2009 @ 3:22pm

163. And the Post Office is a perfect example.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 3:04pm

     I tried and I failed to make any sense out this nonsensical cobbled up mess of a post.

     Hell, I can't even respond to it! There is absolutely no way to make any sense of it.

     But such is the result of even trying to understand the ravings of lunatics...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 3:34pm

164. Have no idea why multiple post, but I apologise any way.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 3:06pm

     The multiple posts of pure "crap". How appropriate to the current state of reliable information and true facts..

     I need some help here. Just because I'm posting doesn't mean I don't need help fighting off the "Zombies".

     I run out of ammunition and need to reload every once in awhile.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 3:39pm

165. Government Source:

     http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData

     NATIONAL HEALTH EXPENDITURES BY TYPE OF SERVICE AND SOURCE OF FUNDS: CALENDAR YEARS 2007-1960

     National Health Expenditures $2,241,208,000,000

     Sorry, I was $200B too high.

     Now, chaoszen, show me your $2.241T from the places you claimed.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 3:47pm

166. roll back tax cuts= ?? $

     remove cap on SS = ?? $

     Show us the math.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 2:56pm

     What?

     Under a single payer system every citizen would be required to pay a premium based on their income and abilty to pay and their choice of buying into Medicare or opting for Private for profit Healthcare.

     Being one huge group the savings would be significant. Especially since an expansion of Medicare would include everyone who wishes to buy in. The total U.S. population is over 300 billion. Generally about half that number or a bit less are actually working. Depending on current economic conditions.

     These premiums would be paid just like we pay by payroll deduction for Medicare now. Except that by expanding Medicare to include everyone these deductions would be higher. But they would be much less expensive than what people pay for Healthcare now. With no deductibles or co-pays. No exclusions for pre-existing conditions and no loss of Healthcare if you changed jobs. Your Healthcare would be totally portable.

     Everyone would be covered. By right of citizenship.

     If you became unemployed or disabled in some way you would still be covered. There would be no need for Workmens Compensation or Veterans Benefits. Companies would no longer be required to have the burden of supplying Healthcare for their employees. And more people would be apt to take a chance on starting a small business. Which would lead to more job's.

     What I was talking about as far as rolling back the Reagan and Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy and removing the cap on Social Security would require little or no requirement for a payroll deduction on Healthcare for working people at all!

     If you are not wealthy, how does this proposal affect you?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 5:36pm

167. Let's do a little back of the envelope.

     The gov't pays about $1.1T. That is medicare, medicaid, veterans, native americans, and a few other things. There is no profit for the gov't and sources claim only 4% overhead.

     People pay about $1.2T. Sources (like Weiner) claim 30% waste due to insurance companies, so 70% goes for care. Seventy % of $1.2T is $0.84T.

     Together, $1.94T goes to actually doing stuff.

     You say half the population works. That's about 150 million people. Let's give 50% of the workers a break and not charge them premiums, or really low because they don't make much. Then, 75 million workers have to come up with $1.94T, which is $25,866 per worker. Even getting Marxist progressive on the tax rates, your going to have a problem.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 5:58pm

168. Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 5:58pm

     I think you completely lost the gist of my argument many posts ago. And I cannot afford to waste my time trying to sort through your mental confusion.

     Sorry.

     I have bigger fish to fry.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 6:11pm

169. Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 5:58pm

     What do you expect from a guy who thinks the Post Office is an example to aspire to...and then blames YOU for thinking you can't be "edjacated"...and he has bigger fish to fry...

     thats why he drives a union truck driver for the Post Office carrying ads and paper spam to fill your mailbox. He doesn't know Fed Ex and UPS are contracted to haul the real important stuff FOR the PO.

     be greatful he is where he is, for he is a perfect Obama type that the govt likes to hire...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 6:23pm

170. What? In your small world anyone who disagrees with you either hates your narrow version of the "Constitution" or is a Marxist.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 3:14pm

     So, tell me what you think that Darla meant by this statement?

     <because, well, some old, dead, white, rich, powerful slaveowner said (ironically) that taking care of people was illegal.

     the fraudulent christian strikes with each posting....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/24/2009 @ 01:30am>

     Darla's just another leftist who hates the constitution.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:52pm

     Sounds like she dislikes the founders and their beliefs.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 6:26pm

171. Hey Big P and sntauri, go f*&k yourselves. Why don't you go some place where people will agree with you, and get off of the Nation blog? It wouldn't hurt you and it would help alot of us on the "left".

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/24/2009 @ 6:52pm

172. Posted by Denise29 at 08/24/2009 @ 6:52pm

     Because they are exercising their right to free speech..irrelevant that you don't like it...

     why don't you go pay for your own health care? why make me pay for it...in that light, when you come for my money I earned amd took the necessary steps to place myself in a position to pay my own bills...

     I say to you go f%$k yourself.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 7:03pm

173. "in that light, when you come for my money I earned amd took the necessary steps to place myself in a position to pay my own bills"

     the perfect encapsulation of that arcane economic philosophy: conservativism.

     and only maasch would compare medicare to the post office. how can one have a conversation with one who believes that the government would "run" a public option like the post office?

     it's just absolutely absurd to hold such a view, especially given the fact that we already have a government-run, and successful, program like medicare.

     and even if it were true that medicare was losing money, does it really matter?

     should the government actually MAKE money off healthcare, as a goal in and of itself?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/24/2009 @ 7:36pm

174. how can one have a conversation with one who believes that the government would "run" a public option like the post office?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/24/2009 @ 7:36pm

     You're absolutely right. We should discuss how the government will run the public option like Amtrak. And we should discuss how the government mandated electronic patient record system will reflect the same success the FAA has had in upgrading the Air Traffic Control system.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 7:47pm

175. Hammock hell. It's so hot today in Bluefields (Nicaragua). Earlier, I attempted to order lunch in Espanol. Not good so far. Was worn out from last night's 'terrorfest', some amazing indigenous dancer. Explaining their vision quest ritual. So tired and this internet connection's crappy.

     Posted by winyahn at 08/24/2009 @ 8:16pm

176. And this just in:

     "The Washington Times is reporting that 'volunteers' are needed from of all places, the FAA, to help with processing claims from the overwhelmed "Cash for Clunkers" program.

     Air Traffic Controllers are apparently among those requested to 'volunteer' to work overtime to help process claims and the article goes on to state that "essential safety personnel were not diverted from their duties."

     Air Traffic Controllers are among one of the highest technically trained professions in or out of the federal government. While they are also one of the agencies under the Dept of Transportation, it's highly doubtful they would have the downtime for such a request."

     Fast forward, and substitute "public option" for "cash for clunkers".

     Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 8:33pm

177. Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 6:23pm

     You know very little about what I do or what I haul.

     Actually, I see very little in the way of ad's and paper spam. Mosly I deliver packages and regular mail. Sure the P.O. handles a large amount of advertising. That's because Bulk Mail prices are extremely competitive for businesses that advertise in that fashion.

     Believe me, as a customer I abhore recieving junk mail. I just recycle it. But the postal service is like any other vehicle for delivery. They don't judge the customer's intention. They just provide the service.

     If you want to bitch about junk mail and the waste of natural resources that it entails, why don't you send your complaints to the people who originate this crap?

     The postal service is after all a "service" and does not discriminate or quibble about the motivations of it's customers.

     This "junk" mail does not originate with the post office. It orginates with the vendors of these products and or services.

     Fed Ex carries overnight mail for the Postal Service. They contract out air shipments for the USPS.

     The company I work for is a private contract ground carrier for the USPS, just like Fed Ex.

     And yet you want to disrespect me. And the privately held corporation that I work for that hauls the mail.

     What an idiot you are. I work 6 1/2 days a week to deliver mail. I have not had a vacation in over 2 years. I drive over 3000 miles a week. Through all kinds of weather and road conditions 363 days a year.

     What do you do asshole?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 8:58pm

178. And on top of all that. I still find the time to kick your ass and others like you on these threads.

     How does that feel? To know that a lowly "truck driver", like me is quicker than you, smarter than you and more dedicated than you in preserving the ideals that made this country great?

     Take your back seat. And just feel fortunate that you are even a part of the parade..

     Sorry, I really should try and be more humble..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 9:28pm

179. Darlaloon,

     .."and only maasch would compare medicare to the post office. how can one have a conversation with one who believes that the government would "run" a public option like the post office? "

     Your statement above is why I don't have serious conversations with you on anything...

     If the PO runs, say, $9 billion short, do they fold like a normal business or do they get money from govt?

     And the comparison between the PO and Medicare is to demonstrate the management capabilities and skills for all to see...

     they both are insolvent in a matter of time and BOTH are govt run/managed institutions, and when added to the ultimate Ponzi scheme of Social Security...there is ample evidence for even the dimmest bulb on the left to see why we should NEVER turn our health care over to the same idiots and incompetents.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 9:35pm

180. What do you do asshole?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 8:58pm

     I own part of a small manufacuturing company that employs 8 people. I create jobs.

     I sell our product, American made, designed, produced, and shipped, to China and make them pay up the ass.

     My second job is as independent rep for a jewelry company...I sell millions of dollars of product to TV stations, internet companies and small wholesalers...

     I travel the entire country as well as internationaly...and keep hotels, airlines and food companies in business...by spending $100ks a year in expenses in order to produce millions of dollars in sales, which keeps people working..I avoid as much taxes as posssible so I can KEEP those guys working..

     As far as you kicking anyones ass intellectualy...havent seen any evidence of that...you aint one of the intellectual types that come to mind when one thinks of brain power on this site...and there are some very bright people here with whom I disagree but have a high degree of respect...and you come up more than a little short...you and Daraloon for me are about on the same tier...and she is a complete kool aid drinker, plus, shes stones every day...says it makes her think better,,,ya know?

     you do come off as a typical blow hard government worker who has bought into the govt program, lock, stock, and barrel...unionised, of course.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 9:53pm

181. I sell our product, American made, designed, produced, and shipped, to China and make them pay up the ass. Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 9:53pm

     If you indeed ship to China (which I doubt), you pay up the ass. China has protective trade policies. Unlike us.

     And if you sell "millions" of dollars worth of "jewelry" on the internet or through TV ads, you are a crook. And probably should be investigated. I have been a gemologist and stone cutter for many years. And have yet to find anyone who sells "jewelry" by the "millions" on T.V. or the internet who is anywhere near honest.

     And if you bothered to read my post. I don't work for the government. I work for a private contractor who subcontracts for the USPS.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/24/2009 @ 10:17pm

182. When I'm not correcting the math errors of progressives, I sometimes work for Air Serv International, out of Abeche in Eastern Chad, flying a Cessna Caravan carrying relief supplies to refugee camps along the Chad Sudan border. We don't get shot at as much as we used to, and I'm getting a little too old to do this type of flying. So I come here to keep the progressives from little errors like assuming that rolling back the Bush tax cuts can fund all the good things in the world. I respect all persons chosen means of employment. Even Darladoon's!

     Posted by sntauri at 08/24/2009 @ 10:18pm

183. "If you indeed ship to China (which I doubt), you pay up the ass. China has protective trade policies. Unlike us. "

     This demonstrates you are clueless. And belong in a truck.

     "And if you sell "millions" of dollars worth of "jewelry" on the internet or through TV ads, you are a crook. And probably should be investigated. I have been a gemologist and stone cutter for many years. And have yet to find anyone who sells "jewelry" by the "millions" on T.V. or the internet who is anywhere near honest. "

     TV ads? You haul ads...I sell TO TV networks which sell hundreds of millions to people with a free choice to buy or not buy..think of all those jobs and taxes you clowns on the left are stealing?

     Jtv, one of the networks on the air, sell between $500 and $ 300 million a year...

     This demostrates you are clueless about business...and belong in a truck.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 10:30pm

184. and you are about to be thrown under a truck by your own party and soon, in the next election cycle, the entire thinking country.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 10:32pm

185. "Your statement above is why I don't have serious conversations with you on anything...

     If the PO runs, say, $9 billion short, do they fold like a normal business or do they get money from govt? "

     maasch, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/24/2009 @ 11:04pm

186. "even countries with single payer have a private insurance industry. they must be saving the smart neocons for their own rabid blogs, as we ain't got any." Posted by emile duBois at 08/24/2009 @ 11:46am

     Snappy comeback. Did you get lost and wander in here?

     Posted by twillie at 08/24/2009 @ 11:12pm

187. Have another toke, Darla. There's a soul mate of yours around here ......if you read the blog you will recognize him.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 11:22pm

188. "why don't you go pay for your own health care?"

     why don't you pay for your own police. and fire dept?

     or your own wars? why make me pay for YOUR f-en wars?

     see where this is going?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 07:12am

189. Sounds like she dislikes the founders and their beliefs.-----Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 6:26pm

     So you support all the beliefs of the Founders?

     Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 08:12am

190. Posted by cdlepthien at 08/24/2009 @ 3:22pm |

     Sad but true.

     The nat average (pub and private together) was $7421 per capita: abysmal.

     Of course, they're ignoring that this includes a host of lifestyle drugs that are debatably a public responsibility (Prozac $12B, Viagra $3B, Lipitor $6B, sniffle meds, Ben-Gay,...) as well as people's yoga classes, eyeglasses, and hearing aids.

     Eliminating these factors makes the total cost for the type of coverage we're discussing $1.2T.

     Part of making this fiscally balance is that you can 'means test' most of the benefits and only offset part of the cost for all but the poor, ensuring that none of us need fear cancer or expensive surgery bankrupting our family, but making us aware of the cost of the care for which we're asking (a seemingly cruel, but nonetheless important incentive to avoid rationing, bankruptcy of the system from hypochondriacs, and all the other ghosts the cons chase around).

     Some of that money would come from us (300M, not 75M) paying Obamacare premiums to the big single-payer in Washington. They raise $60B from 44.1M now, so $400B from all 300M of us minus $100B from those who can't afford even a premium.

     So that $300B plus the $200B in payroll taxes for Medicare, $50B for the VA budget,...hey $550B...now we're rolling.

     Raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels would generate many hundreds of billions in tax revenue per year (given the stats for income from taxfoundation.org for 2008), but we needn't go that far.

     Squeezing out the difference between $550B and whatever the real cost of healthcare is (how can you really tell in this bizarre subsidized market?) minus the cost of things with flexible demand which we can choose not to cover, it is achievable, if we want to.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/25/2009 @ 08:24am

191. .I avoid as much taxes as posssible so I can KEEP those guys working..

     you are a great humanitarian.

     avoid taxes for the benefit of others. you are an inspiration to all of us.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 08:40am

192. Some of that money would come from us (300M, not 75M)

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/25/2009 @ 08:24am

     Want to rethink this?

     How many of the 300M are under 18? How many over 65 already on Medicare? Are you going to charge those who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit? Are you going to charge the 12% claimed to live in poverty? Are you going to charge the Illegal Immigrants who somehow pay taxes but no one knows who they are or where they live (even though they will be counted in the 2010 census)?

     Heartless progressive!

     Posted by sntauri at 08/25/2009 @ 10:21am

193. Sounds like she dislikes the founders and their beliefs.-----Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 6:26pm

     So you support all the beliefs of the Founders?

     Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 08:12am

     I know where you think you're going with this Mask. And I say again to you...

     CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

     I was referring to their beliefs about the role of the Federal govt under the new constitution.

     that doesn't therefore mean that I shared the beliefs of all the founders on religion, slavery, or any number of other issues.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 10:58am

194. Posted by sntauri at 08/25/2009 @ 10:21am |

     Asked and answered, "... minus $100B from those who can't afford even a premium."

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/25/2009 @ 11:30am

195. Hey jomamma, I pay for my own health care and I pay my taxes, unlike you.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/25/2009 @ 11:47am

196. Hey jomamma, I pay for my own health care and I pay my taxes, unlike you.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/25/2009 @ 11:47am

     I am glad you pay for your own health care..you should, it's YOUR health care...

     .. you can work at Starbucks for 20 hours a week and get full health care coverage...you don't need govt in the deal.

     Think any of these people without health care would work 20 hrs a week at a coffee joint to get heralth care? How about welfare "customers"...it is not that hard to take of yourself if you THINK.

     I would guess I generate more in tax revenue and am responsible for jobs creating that creates additional tax payers in a year than you do in a life time.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 12:55pm

197. .I avoid as much taxes as posssible so I can KEEP those guys working..

     you are a great humanitarian.

     avoid taxes for the benefit of others. you are an inspiration to all of us.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 08:40am |

     Thank you...

     Since the less I send to communists in Washington the more we can keep in our business, the more I can expand into the business in order to grow and make more sales, profits and more people can be hired..

     If I send more to the fools in Washington, the less I have to put back into the business, the less I grow, the less I hire...the less revenue into the treasury.

     It is really that simple.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 12:58pm

198. Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 10:58am

     But you allow no "CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT" for Darla, do you???

     Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 1:30pm

199. If I send more to the fools in Washington, the less I have to put back into the business, the less I grow, the less I hire...the less revenue into the treasury.

     It is really that simple.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 12:58pm

     What these leftists who love to tax the fruit of others labor seem to forget is that when tax rates were higher, the wealthy simply sheltered more of their income and assets to protect them from these thieves.

     If they are successful in raising tax rates back up, we will see a repeat of that which will then lead them to do what FDR did which is raise taxes on everyone. And once again, thanks to the left, it will be the middle class and the poor who pay a greater share of the income tax revenue.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 1:31pm

200. Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 1:31pm

     This is true..

     and they ignore what is happening in all the states that the Dems have controled for years on all levels...

     California, New York, New Jersey...for starters......this will be imposed on all of us if they have their way..

     they also forget Maryland, which put in place a millionare tax , adding extra taxes on those who earned a million dollars in order to close a revenue short fall....they had 3000 tax payers in that group when tax went into affect..the following year they had less than 1500 in that group....

     and the revenues?...they fell even further than the original short fall...one solution NEVER considered?

     Cutting expenses or taxes...

     even as a test case..cut taxes and see money pour back into coffers...

     Keep fighting the good fight...you amaze me...I do love the humor this site provides, tho...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:50pm

201. But you allow no "CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT" for Darla, do you???

     Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 1:30pm

     Wrong, I responded specifically to her context.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 1:59pm

202. The reason I don't feel bad for McAfee or Norton is because their products are less than crappy and are in the end scams. You get more protection from software that is given out for free than from their products. They have made a business on false protection for people who don't know much about computers.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:50pm

203. Keep fighting the good fight...you amaze me...I do love the humor this site provides, tho...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:50pm

     thx JM

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 3:55pm

204. god jomamma, brag much?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/25/2009 @ 4:43pm

205. Since the less I send to communists in Washington

     was Bush one of those communists?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 5:04pm

206. It is really that simple. Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you paying for health insurance for those workers and their families?

     if the answer is yes, imagine the gov't picking up that tab. you could then hire even more workers and invest even more in the biz. kapish?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 5:12pm

207. Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 5:12pm |

     My money is on all YJM's employees being alien residents and him not paying a dime for their healthcare.

     The convenient con delusion that money not paid in taxes necessarily goes into expanding their businesses and creating jobs is ludicrous at best.

     "If we give the top 1% enough champagne..."

     Go try trickling on someone else, perverted purveyors of putrid policy.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 09:31am