Exactly why there should be a moratorium on bringing in foreigners to fill American jobs. Anyway though, I abandoned IT for that reason. Taking an economics class helped me to realize that. You get paid according to the value added and if there are innumerable people who can do the same job you can then you aren't adding much value. IT is the new auto-mechanic. It started out luxurious but once the market became diluted while it might still be a difficult thing to do, the supply exceeds the demand and wages are driven down.

My wages have been stagnant for 2 years. My taxes have gone up. My real estate taxes have skyrocketed, my fuel has increased, groceries cost more, and my electric bill is billowing.

Meanwhile, my boss just realized a 50% increase, pays for all her gas (and a couple tanks weekly for her family) on the company, pays for smart phones for her 2 kids, brother in law, parents, and husband on the company, calls every restaurant receipt a "company meeting", even when it includes Happy Meals, has cashed out all her vacation but still takes them, and insures her vehicles/repairs them off the business.

I asked her for a raise but was told we couldn't afford it. She complains constantly about the economy and wants Mitt Romney elected in the worst way.

I think we all know why.

It's all about beating that almighty profit record again and then only rewarding the highest paid person as if they actually cause the profits with their own hands.

Hey woodierae...it's her freaking business...

Where do you get that idea? I don't see that anywhere in woodierae's comment.

Woodie, report that greedy biotch to the IRS for an audit.

I went 3 years without a raise in my company even though I was a stellar performer. It did not stop the CEO or any of the other 1%s from getting there LARGE Bonuses.

Woodieray: Your comments reminds me of a line from Mel Brooks "History of the World, Part 1": ---its good to be the king.

As for IT, just yesterday, Harley Davidson announced that it was contracting out some of its IT work to a company based in India. (Inforsys). 125 IT jobs are expected to be lost.

Never Stop Asking Questions

I know many people who hold two full-time jobs just to make modest ends meet, and so that one job may guarantee health insurance.

Most poor people are not poor because they are lazy, it is because the system is rigged against them.

There goes your "motivation theory," Ron.

Umm...you didn't disprove anything I said. You just stated your opinion. Having differing opinions is great - as long as we can respect and listen to the opinions of others.

Personally, I think all of these issues are very complicated. But, in my experience, those that care about being financially success and work smart AND hard, generally succeed in the long run.

For example, a friend of mine grew up very poor (probably lower 10% - having enough food to eat was a constant issue), but they started working at 15 and worked their way through college over 8 years. When they went to school they didn't take on any debt and they got a degree they knew would increase their chances of getting a good paying job in the future. They are now in the upper 20% bracket.

I have another friend that is one of the most brilliant developers I've worked with and he regularly works 80+ hour weeks, but he is not very smart with his time or his money. He also grew up poor (not quite as poor as the first friend), but he has only made modest financial gains since graduating college (probably lower 40% now instead of the lower 20% where he started from).

@Woodie: I hear you; I owned a small business a few years ago and saw people (including a partner) pull stunts like that. There's not a lot of people like that, but they are a real pain when they do. And just like your boss, their political leanings were predictably GOP - I suppose to keep the gravy train running.

node4,

I worked for a mid-sized company that had a Democrat CEO (husband was also a big time Democratic lobbyist). When we had hard times the executives went to her and asked her approval for a 20% executive-only pay cut so they wouldn't have to layoff workers...she said no and went ahead with the layoffs...

My point is, there are greedy, self-centered Dems and Reps.

woodierae, you forgot the part where your boss doesn't pay taxes because of all the write offs. Rick should pay his fair share of taxes too.

So. What do our current corporate overlords NOT know that HENRY FORD knew?

YOU NEED TO PAY YOUR WORKERS ENOUGH TO BUY YOUR PRODUCT.

theboys

You hit on part of the problem. When the cost of living goes up 2% and everyone gets a 2% raise, the pay gap widens. A person making 20,000 a year whose whole salary goes to their cost of living gets 400. The person making 100,000 a worker year gets 2000 dollars. Their cost of living went up the same, but the 100,000 a person gets an extra 1600 for discretionary spending while the 20,000 a year person stays stagnant. This applies to all cost of living raises, social security included. A more fair way would be to calculate the rise in cost of living in dollars and give raises of that amount to all workers in the company. As long as percentages are used, the gap between low level workers and managers will widen. If you want to use percentages, then the percentage should be applied to average salary of all workers and then everyone get the same raise.

Rick-546746, No it is not her business it's called fraud and is against the law!

SRS, What a great comment about Ford!

During the 2008 Financial Collapse, everyone's wages were frozen for national economic reasons. Of course, we saw there were ways certain people got around that--giving themselves new titles, promotions, etc. That frozen BS is only an excuse to pay people less and force them to work more.

Of course, when the economy tanks and people are barely making things meet, that's when prices go up--gas, utilities, groceries, u name it. Suddenly your frozen wage is in a fast decline and you are netting just as much as that cashier at McDonald's.

All this economic BS--the collusion between banks & govt, the TARP bailout, congressional insider training that helped Congress actually INCREASE their wealth while workers were in freefall--is UNFORGIVABLE AND CRIMINAL.

Elections are coming up, both locally and nationally. Time to vote some of these do-nothings out and find elected officials who will actually work on behalf of the people instead of on behalf of themselves.

As for Romney, if he wants to ensure that all Americans will be able to direct their paychecks into offshore accounts to circumvent taxes like he does, I'll vote for him.

IT IS a function of three things...company profitability (demand and cost); the uncertainty factor and the JOB POOL. In 2006-7 our area unemployment was 4%. We proactively increased pay in those years because of concern in loosing good employees to another company. If profitability was like 2006-7 we could afford to give more than COLA's. Since 2008 we accrued all employee year end bonuses ranging from none to 2.5% of pay, based on company performance. The uncertainty factor is a big issue today since health care costs went up 25% last year and employee contribution did not change. We will be hard pressed to do that again. All the other uncertainty issues are putting a drag on spending in advance of performance. I beat we are like thousands of other small business companies on main street. The good news is employees are getting overtime this year since we are not hiring added people for the same as the above reason, but that doesn't help those unemployed, and won't until things stabilize.

Rick-546746

"my wife and I do the same thing...run any expense possible through the company so at least you get a deduction for it"

That's called tax evation. The rules are very clear when it comes to personal expenses you are NOT allowed to deduct them. The vehicle expenses are supposed to be prorated to personal/business use. Way to let the cat out of the bag on your crimes

And yet every couple of days the government owned media prints its propaganda headlines that housing prices need to INCREASE and that higher home prices are a GOOD thing!

Investors do not need to make money on their housing "investments". Americans need housing prices that are sustainable on average wages, and we are still far above that.

" ensure that all Americans will be able to direct their paychecks into offshore accounts to circumvent taxes"

I like that idea, but if we all do that, who's paying the government?

In other words, Rick, you have been filing fraudulent tax returns. Deducting personal expenses on a business return is tax fraud. Maybe you can get off with just a big fine and no prison time.

Well we do have the worst income equality of any 1st world country....

Hooray capitalism! :/

SRS,

Do you actually believe that everyone working at a Lincoln plant can afford to buy a new Lincoln?

DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM: MONEY ONLY FLOWS UPWARDS and when the lower class runs out of money to give to the rich (called a recession or depression), the rich have congress steal future earnings by increasing the debt with bailouts, stimulus etc., the only way to keep it going is more national debt.

@Rick #1.6,

So, you tell this commenter(#1.2), whose boss is cheating on their taxes and won't raise his pay...that

you (proudly) do the same (cheat and defraud the American taxpayers).

By your own admission, you are a crooked businessman. I hope you get caught.

Watched an interesting documentary yesterday about the economy. It is called "The Flaw". Basically, the more money that is directed to the top 1% of the country, the more unstable the economy becomes. In the 1950s, the most prosperous time in US history, the top 1% only earned 7% of the income in the US. Now the number is four times as much. So, the richest are making the most money and getting taxed the least.

Meanwhile, the losers in this arrangement are the rest of us who are continually making sacrifice after sacrifice just to have the basics - a house, a working car, gas, food, heat, and electric - all of which have shot through the roof in the last 10 years.

Think about what has happened to the basic expenses of life since 2000 -

Food - Price is double to triple.

Housing - Even after collapse, housing still costs double

A car - A brand new car costs at least $15,000 for a tiny compact, and $20,000 for a sedan. Used cars are are harder to find and cost more because no one can afford a new car.

Gas - In 2000, it was $1.20 a gallon. Today it is $3.50 a gallon and still trending up.

Electric - Prices are increasing everywhere even as natural gas becomes more readily available.

Heat - Heating oil and natural gas have also tripled.

Long story short - in 2000, if you were paying the bills OK and still had 20% of your income left at the end of the month to save, invest, or blow, you are now screwed. Maybe your significant other works, and maybe you now have a second job - just to pay the same basic expenses you could pay with one job in 2000. So, wages have remained stagnant while the buying power of those wages have dropped to HALF of what they once were.

THAT is why the economy is still screwed! You cannot cut the wealth of the population in HALF and expect the economy to stay healthy.

The business is not "her" business; it's her FATHER'S business. She runs it, and he funnels cash into it so as to avoid that whole nasty tax thing. She has been audited EVERY YEAR but manages to stay afloat because she keeps her records in a shoe box format difficult to cipher. IRS auditors, as it turns out, can be fairly lazy. One year, she had to substantiate $108,000 in withdrawals. How did she do it? She went through her checkbook and took every expense she ever wrote that was small enough to slide below the radar. She added to it a fictitious mileage log.

She and her father have an exceptional accountant (Daddy's worth millions) experienced in that "grey area" created by shifless politicians.

I work my bum off and have received excellent references from every job I've ever held BUT I live in small town USA, where jobs are available rarely. We generally are stuck with either a lengthy commute or taking it in the shorts with local jobs.

And our business WOULD be profitable were it not for all the freebies she gives out to family members. I do not begrudge her the right to earn a fair living. But she received a $4000 tax REFUND when she paid ZERO taxes last year (other than sales/property taxes). Oh, and the worst part about the job is knowing (yet not being able to provide documentation) she takes about $150k in cash under the table.

She wants Romney in because she's upset that the Democrats want to "give all the money to the poor". Is there any wonder WHY we're poor? It's GREED.

You can thank the union bashing teabagging idiots for this mess. If private US jobs were still 50% union this would not be happening.

Report tax fraud useful link below:

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=106778,00.html

Why bother to do a job for someone if you still won't be able to pay your bills and rent? That's called slavery, and economic slavery is what the Republicans want to create.

And yet every couple of days the government owned media prints its propaganda headlines

Government owned media? What country are YOU talking about???

Neither party has a monopoly on tax evasion. I worked in a tax accounting practice that served high-wealth individuals in the tech industry. They were usually the ones most willing to get aggressive and creative in their tax avoidance schemes - far and away the majority of them were Democrats.

I work for a hospital that hasn't been able to afford to give cost of living raises for FIVE YEARS. I make less now than I did 12 years ago. Economies are much worse in rural communities like mine than they are in more populated areas. All I can say is that I am lucky that I have the job I have.

I see the liberal liars are out in force today.

"Well we do have the worst income equality of any 1st world country....

Hooray capitalism! :/"

LIE! The gap has widened greatly ever since socialist democrats took over congress six years ago. The rich have gotten richer and the poor and middle class have been totally decimated.

"DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM: MONEY ONLY FLOWS UPWARDS and when the lower class runs out of money to give to the rich (called a recession or depression), the rich have congress steal future earnings by increasing the debt with bailouts, stimulus etc., the only way to keep it going is more national debt."

LIE! That is the definition of socialism, government taking all money an redistributing it, usually to themselves. What was Castro worth, $50 million? What was the average Cuban worth at the time?

The definition of capitalism is a buyer and a seller agreeing on a price, nothing more, nothing less. What you are seeing now is socialist crony capitalism, rewarding friends while punishing enemies, picking winners and loosers/micromanaging via central planning. That is what is failing miserably.

Woodie,

Why do you know about your boss's personal income taxes? That really isn't any of your business. I seriously doubt that she received a refund if she hadn't paid any taxes.

Also, if this is a family business I'm not surprised that family is taking good care of family.

You should do your job and not worry about what anyone else is making or find something else.

Its all about supply and demand...

When 1% gets 80% of the overall income like they currently do, there will be no demand and the economy will slow to a trickle.

There will be no lasting recovery in housing, healthcare, education, or any other sectors until the greedy 1% start paying their fair share of taxes and much more of the overall income goes towards the middle class. Capitalism will not work without demand, anybody saying otherwise simply proves their ignorance.

The trickle down theory is a load of bunk fed to the ignorant who'll believe anything the party of hate will feed them. If the middle class doesn't have money to spend, the 1%ers won't increase their profits. That's why they outsource jobs, so they can increase profits regardless of who it affects in this country.

"Most of those polled feel that the jobs outlook was the most improved component this year."

I survived the latest company layoff last week when 7% of my company's workforce were let go. I am sure this poll taken makes these guys that were let go feel better about the direction the economy is headed. We can expect more of the same as long as the same leader stays in place after the November election.

I don't know about anyone else, but for me, its not JUST the small paychecks. It's teh cost of living rising by leaps and bounds. Many are getting to the point where they can't afford the necessities (housing, food, etc.) much less anything else.

I don't know about anyone else, but for me, its not JUST the small paychecks. It's teh cost of living rising by leaps and bounds. Many are getting to the point where they can't afford the necessities (housing, food, etc.) much less anything else.

And yet half of these right wing slobs who can't afford those basics still believe Steve Jobs personally earned and deserved 40+ billion. They have no idea about how money is made, how it gets circulated, how completely broken the current cycle is. Might as well say a black hole deserves all the mass it has simply because it can suck in everything within reach, but they don't believe in science or math either.

@ Will-1091847 regarding your comment #1.34 - I couldn't have said it better! There really is no other way to look at our current situation. Why would anyone wonder why Americans are suffering so much today?

Rob-523523 #1.40 Did you require your clients to divulge to you, their political party affiliation??

Greatgran101, They generally made no secret of it, and affiliations can be pretty easily gleaned via the predominant recipients of campaign contributions...

Hmmmm, I wonder how many complainers took advantage of prosperity when they could?

Remember between 1995 and 2000 when the stock market made that meteoric rise from about 4,500 to11,500? How about when the market skyrocketed from 7,500 in 2002 to almost 14,000 in 2007? Where were the savings? Where was the diversification of portfolios?

Don't tell me you didn't know it was happening either. I day-traded the dot-com hysteria, everybody knew. All you had to do was look at your 401K or IRA or any other equities you had. You remember when Greenspan even labeled it "irrational exuberance". Most people’s equity value was multiples greater than it should have been. A lot of money was made in that incredible 5 year period. Even the 2002-2007 market spike was filled with opportunity to benefit. I doubt anyone was taking their money out and diversifying their investment portfolio. Hell, most were living off of credit cards, second mortgages and home equity loans to keep paying for their increasing consumption.

The problem is we live under a consumption based economy. Why? Because we don’t make as much here as we used to. Now before any of you start ranting about your Keynesian demand side economics let me remind you, that can ONLY work when we’re not living under a $600 billion dollar trade deficit. When was the last time ANY politician told us to SAVE our money? Ever? Nope, just spend it, consume things. But what they don’t tell you is that most of that money goes right offshore in the form of ever-increasing imports. Yes, corporations make money on their middle-man profits but the bulk of that profit goes offshore. A $600 billion trade deficit does not translate into a lot of prosperity for Americans.

After the 2008 collapse Americans became frugal again. For one whole year! All of a sudden “frugality Fatigue” set in and consumption began again in 2010 as spending increased 2.3%. Everyone was heralding the triumphant return of the American consumer as the engine of renewed economic growth. This is what drove the recoveries following the most recent recessions of 1990 and 2001. So, why isn’t it working now? Equity. Back in the good old days we had equity in our own personal gold mine, our homes. Today that has gone buh bye. The average Americans net worth has decreased 40%, most home are, or are very close to being, underwater.

Americans save about 5-6% of their disposable income (income - taxes). The Chinese save 30%, the Swiss 14% and the Germans 13%. Only 20% of Americans have saved regularly for the past 30 years, over 40% spend more than they earn. Most people increase their expenses as fast as their income increases. The problem is that they can’t give up their improved lifestyle when hardship strikes. We have been indoctrinated in the “plastic is money” ideology. Credit cards make it a lot easier to spend even if you can’t afford it. Interestingly, the highest rates of savings occurred during WW II. From 1940-1945 savings increased from about 4% to over 25% in 1943. The next highest was in the mid 80’s at 11% and has been decreasing since.

We must realize that the fiscal and monetary policies of the last 100 years have not worked. More importantly we have to realize the good ole days will never be back. The labor markets for unskilled, illiterate workers are gone. Unless we recapture some of our lost domestic exportable manufacturing industries we will have a very slow, agonizing recovery for years to come. Our government is dysfunctional and our economic policy is nonexistent. Hell, we can’t even pass a budget! If any of you believe the nation with the biggest GDP in history can function efficiently and affordably without a budget, you deserve all the austerity it will take to fix all this. The European Union must, and will, collapse. When it does we will be dragged down right behind it. Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have all been had their outlooks revised to negative by Moodys. Many of the EU economies are no longer sustainable or recoverable. The only step after a double-dip recession for them is collapse. As they are our largest trading partner our inevitable double-dip is not difficult to understand, or worse.

Maybe someday Americans will realize that Keynesian economics have never worked. It didn’t work during the Depression and it won’t work now.

So, anyway, go ahead and splurge this month. Take your family of four out for lunch, but remember you just spent that whole $40 that the payroll tax cut gives you.

Bon appétit!

WoodieRae-3499404 (1.35)

She wants Romney in because she's upset that the Democrats want to "give all the money to the poor". Is there any wonder WHY we're poor? It's GREED.

Hmmmm, seems to me you’re blaming the wrong people. Your post is replete with anger about our criminal progressive tax system with all its avoidance techniques, a dysfunctional IRS and the people who are just taking advantage of it. It seems you should be outraged over our tax system.

In 2010 and 2011 the IRS had over 110 million inquiries each year regarding our massive tax code, over 25% of the questions couldn't be answered by the agents. Yet many of you somehow believe that changing a few loopholes will somehow make everything nice and fair. The ignorance is amusing.

This is the same childish sideshow everyone is making about Romney’s taxes. First of all, how many of you will be willing to have your friends and community see your returns and allow the experts to delve into every penny over the past ten years? None probably, because it’s none of our business! Romney’s been in politics for over 20 years, his taxes have been through our IRS. If there is something wrong, I’m sure over the past 20 years we would have heard about it. If not, your anger should be at the government and its ongoing incompetence. If you’re just jealous because he’s rich, that’s just your own shallowness showing, man up, leave it alone.

A 72,000+ page tax code that changes about 2-3 times every day with over 1,100 different forms is NOT designed for transparency. It’s designed for abuse and avoidance. Mitt Romney, Warren Buffett, Apple, GE and millions more don’t write our tax code. Congress does, even though the Supreme Court has decided they should interpret penalties and taxes now. If you have a beef take it up with the IRS, they are the most feared collection agency on the planet, if they can’t get it right it’s not Mitt Romney’s or our fault, it’s theirs.

Greed isn’t someone wanting to keep more of what they earn; its people demanding a greater share of money that someone else has earned.

Greed isn’t someone wanting to keep more of what they earn; its people demanding a greater share of money that someone else has earned.

You don't see the irony in a CEO taking tens of millions they didn't earn from those who did, taking roads, power, capital they didn't have any part whatsoever in building up to begin with? What exactly did Romney do to justify his hundreds of millions? Oh right, he demanded a great share of thousands of hard working american's pensions and capital that he played no part in creating but gleefully destroyed and handsomely benefitted from.

comment #1.42, come on Phil. You can't seriously believe all of this is rooted in the last few years. This is how it has ALWAYS been and only through the will of the few has there been any fight against it.

Before we had anti-monopoly laws, what happened? Before we had unions, what happened? Before we had financial regulations, what happened? Before we had democracy, what happened?

This isn't pure socialism, what you're describing isn't socialism either! Castro was a thief who used communist ideals to keep the people under his thumb and steal from them. That isn't socialism, it is thievery and lying.

Now, the idea that those with contribute to help those without is founded in a "socialist" mentality. It plays on our natural inclination to form "communities," work together for mutual benefit, and the modern understanding that poverty impacts far more people than just the impoverished.

I find it interesting that the calls of socialist crony capitalism are followed by examples of totalitarian dictators and fascists. In those examples the wealth is always redistributed to the top. It isn't just one person, it is an aristocracy that benefits in all those cases. In the absolute most general outside terms, it is remarkably similar to our system. The main difference is, our system has the illusion of upward mobility.

We all have the ability to move into the the upper middle or lower upper portion of the modern American aristocracy, but to reach that tip top, you have to know the right people and scratch the right backs. Same as any other model.

This isn't at all new and it isn't at all a democrat vs republican issue. It is a human issue. It has to do with accountability. Some of us hold ourselves accountable, which maybe a luxury of those "unburdened" with limitless wealth. Unfortunately, we can't always count on people to hold themselves to the same standards. Plenty of people will do what they can when they can without a care for those it negatively impacts. These are the people we have to be weary of and they exist within all sectors and all political persuasions.

Socialism, Communism, Democracy, Capitalism, Oligarchy, Theocracy, Nationalist, Anarchist, doesn't matter, they all have people who will gladly tell you one thing and do another if it benefits them.

In our case, the accountability gap resides more in the private sector than it does in the public sector. Simply because we have this one mechanism of voting to collectively voice dissent. The private sector will always operate in its own best interest (not saying its wrong, just the truth). The government at least has to pay lip service to its obligation to the people, if they act poorly, they can be removed. (that isn't the case in dictatorships thus a much higher rate of corruption).

We are a society, we live in a community. A rising tide lifts all boats. If you missed it, the boats are the 1%, the tide is the rest of us. What happens if there is no water for the boats to sail on? They sit in the sand and languish.

“To everybody out there blaming Obama, Bush or any other singular government official as the cause for America's prosperity getting flushed down the toilet. You're missing the big picture. The situation is simple: The near entirety of the US government is corrupt and run by political Bribe-takers bought and paid for by people who have amassed the most wealth overall in this country (Top 1% of the US Population). These politicians, now solely representing their funders and not the voters turn around and pass legislation that gives the Super Rich here every advantage possible, including free money (Quantitative Easing/Bailouts), lower taxes and zero accountability for their actions. In order to prevent revolts from the increased burden to the unrepresented in this country, the Super Rich have set up a bogus political party to siphon off and redirect the anger of the masses (The Republicans) and an ineffectual party (The Democrats) to cave to “republican pressure” while pretending to care about the masses. In addition, they have co-opted and bought out nearly all of the mainstream media in order to filter out any info that would lay the blame on the true culprit, instead leaving the majority of America divided and focusing their energies on decoy scapegoats and partisan nonsense. The super rich and those they pay for care not one bit about jobs or the welfare of the country they grew from. They merely care about having as many digits as possible for their bank statement balance. And if that means the middle/working class will eventually need to vanish, then so be it. The entire system is broken.”

”P.S. Please feel free to repost this message elsewhere if you agree. Part of the way to help turn the tide of this problem is by raising awareness to the reality of the situation. Thx –c”

Originally posted by Craig….and couldn’t have been said better!

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered...'

knightofdespair

You don't see the irony in a CEO taking tens of millions they didn't earn from those who did, taking roads, power, capital they didn't have any part whatsoever in building up to begin with?

OK, I’m getting tired of this nonsense you Liberals/Progressives keep advocating so I’ll just repost another comment I made yesterday.

But first I’ll address your concern about “You don't see the irony in a CEO taking tens of millions they didn't earn from those who did”. It’s not irony, it’s envy, jealously and pettiness for you or anyone else to think someone’s income is not justified. Have you ever managed a Forbe’s 2000 conglomerate? Have you gone to school for four to eight more years, climbed the corporate ladder for decades and achieved the position of CEO? Have you ever been responsible for the jobs of hundreds if not tens of thousands of employees? I doubt it. Please, please stop this adolescent pity-party over fairness and some mythical level playing field. Learn more, improve yourself, become more independent and go out and do more for yourself rather than sitting around waiting for someone to give you more of what they earned. If not your just making yourself more insignificant to those who want to be successful.

Now, about this ridiculous notion that government is involved in success.

So, somebody (government) just started building roads and bridges before Henry Ford began mass producing cars in 1903? The roads and bridges were already preplanned years ahead of time anticipating some entrepreneur created the ability and affordability for everyone to buy a Model T?

WOW!!!! The government is absolutely incredible!

NO! Ford introduced the Model T in 1903, the Federal Highway Act was authorized in 1921. By this time Ford had already produced over 10 million cars.

Road and bridges and other infrastructure is not just created, they’re created just like everything else, because of demand and a reason. Do your county development boards just pave roads in the middle of nowhere anticipating that someday someone will build a subdivision or shopping center in the middle of a cornfield?

NO! They wait until developers, contractors and investors submit plans, business plans and site plans to build something. Once again the road is created because of demand and a reason.

Did the government begin to just build airports believing that someday someone will build a machine that can fly? No, they began to build them after 1903 when the Wright brothers invented manned-flight. Once again, because there was demand and a reason.

Did government just start erecting telephone poles without wires connecting houses and cities before Bell invented the telephone or Edison invented the light bulb, phonograph and other inventions that used electricity? NO! These were once again developed AFTER there was a demand.

Yes, even the internet as we know it wasn’t created by the government. The initial idea is credited as being Leonard Kleinrock's after he published his first paper entitled "Information Flow in Large Communication Nets" on May 31, 1961.

In 1962 J.C.R. Licklider becomes the first Director of IPTO and gave his vision of a galactic network. In addition to the ideas from Licklider and Kleinrock, Robert Taylor helped create the idea of the network, which later became ARPANET.

On Friday October 29, 1969 at 10:30 p.m., the first Internet message was sent from computer science Professor Leonard KleinRock's laboratory at UCLA, after the second piece of network equipment was installed at SRI. This connection not only enabled the first transmission to be made, but is also considered to be the first Internet backbone.

The first message to be distributed was "LO", which was an attempt at "LOGIN" by Charley S. Kline to log into the SRI computer from UCLA. However, the message was unable to be completed because the SRI system crashed. Shortly after the crash, the issue was resolved and he was able to log into the computer.

Ray Tomlinson introduces network e-mail in 1972. The first messaging system to send messages across a network to other users.

A commercial version of ARPANET known as Telenet is introduced in 1974 and considered by many to be the first Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Tim Berners-Lee introduces WWW to the public on August 6, 1991.

And of course Al Gore coined the term Information Superhighway.

From there the genius of Netscape, Microsoft, VoIP, HTML and everything else was created by the entrepreneurs who took an idea and created the greatest technologic boom in history.

Sorry government.

Look, government is a service. It does not generate any revenue other than taxes. Taxes are our money. The government is responsible for numerous things. Most of its functions above and beyond its Enumerate Powers were created by itself in response to demand, just like the free market demands. This demand is paid for by everyone using them. When you’re in a traffic jam are all the other drivers on the road businessmen or workers going to work, school or shopping? I wager it’s mostly the latter. Businesses and businessmen pay taxes just like everyone else. These funds are combined and used to benefit everyone not just businesses or millionaires. When you take your kids to soccer should you pay more?

If everything is supplied for someone to build a business why doesn’t everyone own a business?

What exactly did Romney do to justify his hundreds of millions?

Who cares? It’s none of our business. I don’t care how you make your money, why would I care about Mitt Romney? He has filed tax returns for decades. We have the most feared collection agency on the planet known as the IRS. If they haven’t found anything wrong with his taxes it’s good enough for me. The problem with you Liberals is you don’t care about how much Mitt Romney makes, you think he owes you more because he makes more. He doesn’t. No one does. You should be embarrassed to even think someone does.

BTW, please don’t embarrass yourself with the “fairness” mantra that Barrack Hussein is blathering about.

Suck it up, if you want to learn something, read this article.

money.msn.com/personal-finance/what-no-ones-telling-us-workers-usnews.aspx

Jim you make some good points, but you know what; this type of comment turns people off from reading further because they assume you're just ranting about a generalized group of people you assume have no value in this discussion.

"...nonsense you Liberals/Progressives keep advocating..."

I realize it is out of context, but the point is; if you want to have a real discussion, please avoid generalizing like that. Many people who might identify with liberal and progressive values do not fit into the narrow view that gets assigned. Just as many conservatives do not fit the narrow view assigned by the opposing group.

We may all fall into this trap from time to time, but seriously, intelligence and understanding isn't a bastion of one political leaning or the other. To assume otherwise is to betray your own desire to communicate valuable points.

Although this, "The problem with you Liberals is you don’t care about how much Mitt Romney makes, you think he owes you more because he makes more. He doesn’t. No one does. You should be embarrassed to even think someone does," is just completely useless. You have to know that isn't true and you are just using it to troll people. If you do honestly believe that is how all "Liberals" think, I find the cognitive dissonance both interesting and frustrating. I'm going to assume that you are trolling "liberals" for "lolz."

We might all be able to have a decent conversation and realize we agree on a whole lot of stuff if we just stop trolling each other.

SuperfluousHyperbole

I understand what you’re saying. The thing that enrages Conservatives and people in business is the diminution of the success entrepreneurism creates. Look, we all know Obama has as much business experience and entrepreneurial ability as his dog Bo. He has never created a business, he has never created a job and he never really worked a hard day in his life. Now he comes out and berates the ONE THING that created the greatest economy in history, capitalism.

Now, many can agree or disagree its effect but the fact remains, America was built on the shoulders of commerce, on industry. Not government, not unions, not entitlements and social programs. All these things prospered and grew from commerce created by the private sector. Government and unions cannot get a penny out of anyone unless they work for someone to earn that penny. The private sector, with all its attendant wealth, is what gives us union dues and taxes to create entitlements and social programs. Not vice versa. The private sector creates wealth, the public sector consumes it.

Now, explain to me what the obsession with Romney’s taxes is if not just political posturing to create the impression that he did something wrong. Those that worship our criminal progressive tax system should understand that all taxes go through the IRS. As such, if anything is wrong they find it. As such, if Romney had anything found we would have known about it by now. This is a witch hunt pure and simple. It’s part of the class warfare meme Obama is indoctrinating on the public. This has absolutely nothing to do with credentials. If Romney made millions of dollars, good for him. Contrary to some people’s ideology, everyone wants to be a millionaire, there’s nothing wrong with that. Did he pay his taxes according to the 72,000+ pages of our tax code? Good, leave it alone. If you don’t like our outdated progressive tax code that we’ve been tweaking for a century and still can’t get it right, change it. Get rid of it, it doesn’t work, it changes every single day, once if not twice. Stop complaining when people use the system as its designed to be and succeed, that’s the American Dream. The Liberals go after his offshore accounts when 5 of Obama’s staff have offshore accounts. They’re not illegal.

If my comment that you quoted is not true, why do they make an issue about how much he pays in taxes? Again, unless he is guilty of tax evasion everything he does is legal. To incessantly dwell on it is simply envy and an effort to demonize his success. You know this is the memo sent out by the DNC to attack Romney’s success. When Americans demonize success in the name of fairness we will fail. Life is not fair, get over it.

These are non-issues. They're deflections to avoid debate about Obama's record. These campaigns should be back and forths about policy not what kind of prank Mitt Romney pulled on someone in high school.

Jim, you obviously have not studied macro economics - nobody is jealous, we are tired of you conservative types ***incorrectly*** assuming success means hard work or honest products or value - it does not. The wealthy have bent every single method of extracting profits to their advantage for the last 40 years and have accumulated a vast swath of what formerly belonged to the middle class. This is not something to envy or admire, this is a broken system that is going to lead to national collapse. I am not talking about one rich guy or one inventor, I'm talking about the fact that due to broken rules that rich guy or inventor (unlikely) are going to accumulate 1000% more wealth than they would have a generation ago, wealth that disappears from the economy and does not stimulate demand or circulate.

It is as simple as this: You cannot have a capitalism style economy without widespread demand. There are 100 million Americans out there who have skills, want to work, and cannot earn a living wage. Then you have corporate America who is sitting on trillions of dollars taken from workers wages and refuse to do anything with them to benefit society as a whole. Then you have trillions more that got funneled out of the country through misguided and poor tax laws that will never get repatriated back into our infrastructure and tax base. Supply and demand are two halves of the same coin, by refusing to see that today's labor cost is tomorrow's customer you have proven you do not understand even this simple basic fact.

knightofdespair: "The wealthy have bent every single method of extracting profits to their advantage for the last 40 years and have accumulated a vast swath of what formerly belonged to the middle class."

I don't understand this statement. What is your basis for comparison? Are you saying the middle class is worse off today than it was, say in the 1920s? If so, how do you reconcile that against factors such as life-expectancy, or basic creature comforts such as indoor plumbing? Living into one's late 70s or getting to use an indoor flushable toilet were luxuries in the 1920s, but taken for granted today.

Regardless of whether the wealthy are "wealthier" or not today, the middle class is wealthier, too. Capitalism's wealth creation advances the wealth of the entire society. You seem to be addressing it only in relative terms (i.e. your neighbor has more than you do - that can't be fair). That is envy, plain and simple.

I don't understand this statement. What is your basis for comparison?

Take a look at the income distribution back when middle class could afford a house and food, and look at it now. For 35 years the vast majority of growth has gone to the top 1% where it gets removed from circulation, stagnating demand and the purchasing power of the middle class.

You're missing the point. Your argument assumes the size of the "pie" is fixed, and how it's sliced isn't fair. But the size of the pie isn't fixed, it has grown significantly over time, therefore someone might have a smaller slice today in % terms, but it's still a bigger slice in absolute terms.

The pie didn't grow in size because of wealth redistribution. It grew because of wealth generation. Redistribution inhibits wealth generation because it inherently "penalizes" success, thereby demotivating and disincentivizing the entrepreneurial investment and drive that creates improvements to our standard of living. Was it no surprise that the Soviet Union wasn't exactly known for its innovation?

You're missing the point. Your argument assumes the size of the "pie" is fixed, and how it's sliced isn't fair. But the size of the pie isn't fixed, it has grown significantly over time, therefore someone might have a smaller slice today in % terms, but it's still a bigger slice in absolute terms.

It hasn't grown, that IS THE POINT, for the middle class the pie is the exact same size for the last 30 years, any difference in growth ends up in the hands of the 1% who don't buy anything. The middle class at this point is lucky to afford even the basics, and if their costs keep growing while their income stays the same pretty soon the entire house of cards is going to come crumbling down.

How can you say it hasn't grown? My middle-class grandmother died of pneumonia when she was 23 years old in 1934. Today, with advances in antibiotics (developed as the result of for-profit endeavors) she'd live past 80. That's just an example of a standard-of-living improvement that benefits society. There must be much that you take for granted...

How can you say it hasn't grown?

Because it hasn't, adjusted for inflation the middle class actually makes less overall % of income now than 1979

In 1979 the middle three household income quintiles in the United States—that is, the population between the 21st and 80th percentiles on the income scale— earned 50 percent of all national income. But by 2007 the income share of those in the middle shrank to just 43 percent. Evolution of the Gini coefficient, which measures how much a distribution deviates from complete equality, also shows a similar pattern of rising inequality. Between 1979 and 2007 the Gini coefficient including capital gains, in the United States climbed from 48 to 59, ranking the United States in the top quarter of the most unequal countries in the world.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/05/middle_class_economy.html/

Again, you're assuming the size of the pie hasn't changed. It has. A lower % now vs. 1979 is irrelevant, unless you account for the size of the total pie.

I don't see why this is so hard to explain...

You have a certain # of people, making a certain % of overall income, comparing that to today there is no measure where the middle class is better off. Virtually every bit of growth or gains across the board went to the top 5% mostly the top 1%.

Okay, let me try to recalibrate to your scale. Even if I presume your 30 year timeframe is an appropriate one (because, quite frankly, you can pick just about any start point to tell about any story you want), there is much that is mythical about the income disparity story. I don't think I can put it any better than Michael Tanner, from his column earlier this year:

Most studies of inequality, including the recent widely reported study by the Congressional Budget Office, rely on IRS-reported taxable income. But, as studies by the Cato Institute’s Alan Reynolds and others show, reports of skyrocketing incomes among the top 1 percent of earners may be distorted by changes in the tax code that have resulted in more wealth being reported as taxable income. These tax changes caused businesses to switch from filing under the corporate tax system to filing as individuals, and executives to switch from accepting stock options taxed as capital gains to nonqualified stock options taxed as salaries. Simultaneously, the reductions in income-tax rates in 1986 caused much previously unreported income to show up on tax returns. (In other words, much high-wealth income went unreported prior to Reagan's 1986 tax reform, when many of those loopholes were closed.)

At the same time, incomes among lower- and middle-income workers have been shifting from cash wages to non-cash benefits such as health insurance and pensions. These non-cash benefits frequently do not show up as taxable income even though they have value to the worker. In fact, a recent study by Mark Warshawsky of the Social Security Advisory Board suggests that nearly all of the recent increase in earnings inequality “can be explained by the rapid increase in the cost of health insurance employee benefits, and that therefore [there] has not been as significant increase, if any, in inequality of compensation.”

Similarly, many studies looking at low-income Americans fail to account for non-cash social-welfare benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and Medicaid. Fully accounting for all of these factors suggests that the gap between rich and poor may not be nearly as large as thought, and that inequality may not be growing at all.

Studies also show that what inequality does exist is not the result of the Bush tax cuts or a failure to spend more on social-welfare programs, but on the transformation of the American economy from a focus on manufacturing to information and technology. This change puts a greater premium on education. As a result, the incomes of high-school dropouts or those with just high-school degrees have stagnated while incomes for many college graduates and those with graduate-level educations have increased significantly. The unfortunate fact is that despite massive increases in education spending, large segments of our society remain unprepared for a 21st-century economy. That is a tragedy, but it has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich.

In the end, however, one has to ask a more basic question. Why do we care about inequality at all?

Poverty, of course, is a bad thing. But is inequality? After all, if we doubled everyone’s income tomorrow, we would eliminate an enormous amount of economic hardship. Yet, inequality would actually increase. As Margaret Thatcher said about those who obsess over inequality, “So long as the [income] gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer.”

In what way does someone else’s success harm me? Such a viewpoint stems from the misguided notion that the economy is a pie of fixed size. If one person gets a bigger portion of the pie, others of necessity get smaller pieces, and the role of government is to divide up the slices of that pie. In reality, though, the size of the pie is infinite. But to make it grow, we need people who are ambitious, skilled risk-takers. We need people to be ever striving for more. That means that they must be rewarded for their efforts, their skills, their ambitions, and their risks. Such rewards inevitably lead to greater inequality. But as Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker pointed out, “It would be hard to motivate most people if everyone had the same earnings, status, prestige, and other rewards.”

Another Nobel Prize winner, F. A. Hayek, concluded, “The rapid economic advance that we have come to expect seems to be in large measure a result of this inequality and to be impossible without it. Progress at such a fast rate cannot take place on a uniform front but must take place in an echelon fashion, with some far in front of the rest.”

We should all seek a prosperous, growing economy, with less poverty, and where everyone can rise as far as their talent and drive will take them. Equality? Who needs it?

I don't personally mind economic inequality on the simple premise that money does not equal life. However, the part that is ridiculous to an extreme is the fact that we live in the richest country in the world and yet have homeless people living on the street. People who WANT to get a job and make an honorable living CAN'T because the little bit of money they make no longer stretches far enough to cover their basic needs.

So, here is what you do - jack up the taxes on the rich. Don't worry - they'll live. I am sure their children will still have food and shelter. Then take the hundres of billions in extra revenue and start rebuilding the US infrastructure with civil works projects. Give hiring preference to the long term unemployed and the poor. Then the economy will recover from the ground up.

Next, serious steps will need to be taken to drive the cost of basic life necessities down. In particular, the price of crude oil needs to be pushed down to 1990s levels. Increased fuel economy in cars will push down demand, and in turn this will push down the price. Also, expanding commuter rail throughout the country will take cars off the road and lead to more fuel efficiency, which in turn will lead to lower crude oil prices.

Also, a 5 year moratorium on home foreclosures should be put in place. Banks should be forced to refinance junk loans written in the mid-2000s to traditional 30-year 4% interest loans for the CURRENT worth of the home. Interest only and adjustable rate mortgages should be outlawed. Credit card interest should be capped at 10%. It should also become illegal to put unpaid medical expenses on people's credit reports as long as they are paying something toward the bill.

Not that I expect any of this to happen. The powers that be are the ones who stand to lose from the deal - big business and the corrupt congress they have paid off. Nothing can or ever will be fixed simply because the whole darn system is so corrupt that no one can fix it. The rat race is over. The rats won.

@Laura #1.43: With all due respect for what seems like an indication of your intelligence, I wouldn't state what I didn't know to be factual. She runs into trouble with her personal checking account, and I reconcile it for her. I make copies of all her tax returns. I see the tickets written up on fake numbered sales orders that "disappear" as soon as she gets them. I see wads of cash pass through without ever hitting the books. But if it can't be photocopied, it's heresay.

@JimSpence #1.53: You forgot I'm a workaholic. It's the very reason I'm NOT in business for myself. I wouldn't know how to stop, and my family would take a back seat to my drive. Because of this, I DO respect those who are balancing their lives in ways I can't. I DO feel she deserves certain perks. I probably wouldn't care at all how much she pulled from her business were it not for the fact that she pays ZERO in taxes, pulls tens of thousands of cash under the table, then insists our business "can't afford to pay a cost of living increase" to everybody but family members.

I have worked for other businesses that were far more ethical and honest, but even THOSE businesses took perks that were illegal. A lumberyard built all six kids' homes from "damaged inventory", to the tune of a quarter mil each.

It's the excesses that are killing our country...not the earned perks.

back on topic;

Caterpillar Makes Billions, Demands 6-Year Wage Freeze

"Don't worry - they'll live."

Of course they'll live. They'll live and set up shop in another country. There are plenty of tax havens on this planet waiting with open arms to welcome the world's wealthy to their neck of the woods, and bring their spending and investment with them. By targeting the rich, you're targeting the most mobile and portable sources of capital in our country. Just ask the U.K. how well it works. They jacked up taxes on the top 1%, the top 1% set up shop outside the country, and overall tax revenues actually dropped - a dismal failure. Contrary to popular opinion - the rich don't hoard their capital; they spend it or invest it. If they didn't do the latter, they wouldn't stay rich very long. Either activity creates jobs. Tax them more, they compensate by going elsewhere or reducing their spending or investing. Either way, it kills jobs. Not only is there historical empirical evidence to support this corollary, but it's basic common sense.

Tax them more, they compensate by going elsewhere

Who else is going to pay for the roads, bridges, and water lanes built and protected that enabled these greedy warlords to accumulate their pile of capital? They are the only ones with enough money to afford and they do have a duty whether you righties want to admit it or not to put something back into the country that enabled them to get filthy rich. You guys forget we are still wrapping up two very expensive wars that never got paid for, jack that top bracket up to 50% and if they want to leave let them, but ban the treasonous retards from selling or doing business in this country if that is how they want to play.

Reagan had it RIGHT. If you give money to the rich it will trickle down. But if you give money to the poor it will be sucked up in an instant. It winds up in the same place but the velocity and impact are much greater.

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Before globalization, if a company profited, it would build more plants or expand here in the USA. After globalization, when companies profit, they build their next plants in Asia. So trickle down doesn't work anymore in a global economy. Reagan is the guy who invented deficit spending - borrowing from the future to have fun today. He is the reason we have such a big federal goverment and spending!! research it

Totally agree, Dan. WE, the middle class, are the job creators. I'm in IT and make pretty good money... for 15 years ago. If I had more disposable income, I would definitely spend it. Why are we still giving all of the breaks to the upper 2%? So that they will create job? They've had 30 years of tax breaks... and look where it's gotten the middle class.

Well, more plants, locations, and expansion doesn't equate to higher pay. Unfortunately, the cost of goods steadily rises, but pay doesn't always do that. People are working more and harder, for less. To be able to spend, you have to have the money to spend plus pay living costs and bills.

You are absolutely correct! I've been screaming this point for years now. If we would see real, meaningful raises to most employees, that would be the biggest jump start for the economy. And everyone benefits. The poor will spend more and the rich will see increased profits. Clinton had it right, reagan had it wrong. Money never triclkes down but it always trickles up.

Dan you have that right. Giving all the money to the rich never works. It has never worked in man's history. We all do better, when we all do better. This country started its decline when everyone started buying cars from Japan. Then came the box stores. They ran the little mom and pop businesses out of business. The banks helped run small businesses out of business. You couldn't get a short term loan to save your life.

hunter012

Reagan is the guy who invented deficit spending - borrowing from the future to have fun today.

Deficit spending was around long before Reagan. Yes, he increased the dollar amount of the deficits, but he also increased GDP significantly (and started with an economy in a much worse recession than the "great recession").

I agree. Trickle down economics does not work. A big percentage of the GDP is being sequestered by large corporations and the wealthy. They redistribute very little (a trickle) to the peons below them and keep the rest.

The rich think they worked harder than everyone else and that justifies hording a vast percentage of the nations wealth to themselves, but the truth is a large majority had social entitlements (Wealthy parents, exclusive schools, legacy admissions and insider advantages) that the majority doesn't have. If you are born poor, you are more likely to remain that way. If you are born into the top 1%, you are more likely to stay rich. The "Rags to riches" is a great Hollywood story but is a statistical outlier in the real world.

There are many jobs available at the bottom of the social pyramid that pay $10 per hour or less. The problem is, this is not enough to sustain a decent living on. $80 per day doesn't allow you to own a car, so you have to wait for a bus to go anywhere. These jobs often don't have health benefits and you certainly can't afford to own a house.

These low paying jobs only benefit the wealthy that expect employees to make do with less while they maintain outrageous standards of living. The income inequality isn't based on who works hardest. It's based on power, control coupled with greed and a disregard for basic human dignity. Contrary to some beliefs poor people are not lazy.

I think that anyone who thinks that "trickle down" works, ought to ride the bus and see how many people live on low wages.

Money has to flow freely for the economy to work. If it's just a drip, the economy stagnates.

NOBODY is giving all the money to the rich. The rich are smarter and know how money works. Most people are lazy and do just the minimum required because they don't want the responsibility.

I absolutely do think many CEOs are way over paid, but then shareholders need to put pressure on directors which up until recently they were not doing. That is because all boats float.

Ever watch the pawn shows? Very interesting. Many bring in articles that over time will continue to go up in value. Instead they want to sell those objects at a discount in order to GAMBLE. I understand those that NEED to sell, but to sell because you want to have a big night is ridiculous. This is why America is circling the drain. We waste money and have no respect for it.

"NOBODY is giving all the money to the rich."

That's correct, nobody is GIVING it to them, they are just taking it.

I absolutely do think many CEOs are way over paid, but then shareholders need to put pressure on directors which up until recently they were not doing

And those directors are usually CEOs in other companies, who in turn have other CEOs as board members. It's a vicious and incestuous circle.

No. Reagan GOT NOTHING RIGHT. He was an idiot. Just another CORPORATE STOOGE. Anybody that thinks he was even a GOOD PRESIDENT has NO BRAINS.

Trickle down economics NEVER WORKS. EVER. Find ONE example where it worked. I dare you.

HENRY FORD knew how it worked. You pay your workers enough to buy your product.

Give everyone a raise. The company goes bankrupt and we are worse off. The answer is INCENTIVES COMPANIES TO ADD EMPLOYEES HERE INSTEAD OF OFFSHORE.

"Reagan had it RIGHT"

If he got it right, why is the millionaires and billionaires richer and the middle class is dwindling and the poor are growing?

Ellie, experience shows us that if you give money to the rich, it trickles down to the almost rich and there it stops. If you want to benefit the entire population you have to make sure the money spreads out and doesn't go to China or the Cayman Islands or somewhere like that.

I agree with Dan on this one. I read somewhere that instead of the $700B stimulus package, they could have given each family something like $10000. Think about how much more economic activity there would have been in the economy if each family suddenly received $10K. It would have been much better than the lousy results we actually got by providing it to the top !

And more liberal liars heard from. Reagan did not invent deficit spending, it's gone one forever, it was democrat Johnson who got the brilliant idea to raid SS to pay for his illegal war in Viet Nam. That really opened the flood gates.

Reagan and Bush both had it right. Need you be reminded just six years ago unemployment was 4.6%? That's what socialist democrats inherited when they took over congress and waged war in the economy and the middle class in general. Six years later and it's still double what they inherited.

the boys - What do you call it when the richest get tax loopholes, un-needed subsidies, and write-offs that are not available to small businesses or individuals? It is the payoff of being able to bribe the lawmakers that in turn write the tax codes and pass laws that are advantageous to the upper 10%.

Since you are a small business, you don't have any real advantage over the average individual (contrary to what the public believes). You have to work long hard hours and make personal sacrifices, risk your own money and wear many hats. I know, because I have been there (now retired)!

But I have to disagree with statements like "most people are lazy" and the "rich are smarter and know how money works" etc. Trust me, I know that there are an abundance of lazy people, and I know some very smart rich people. But neither is the norm! Most people work hard and want the same things as most to make a meaningful life. Many "rich people" are no smarter than the average individual, and some are just plain ignorant! The opportunity to become wealthy has more to do with being born to the right parents, at the right time and in the right place than "being smarter"! As spoken by one of the nation's wealthiest individual.

You said in an earlier post, that you received no help. Not true, you live in a country that provides an opportunity for average citizens to open and run a business and, through tax payer money, provided the infrastructure that makes it possible for the public to aquire your goods or service. Highways, bridges, ferry system, communications, police and fire protection, electric grid, airports, interstate trucking and so much more, that you did not have to provide from scratch. Beyond that, there is the intellectual basis, provided by those that pioneered whatever business that you chose to base your particular business on. We all add to the base as we expand and build our individual area of expertise, no one does it totally "on their own". I believe you are probably smart enough to know this, but perhaps not quite wise enough to admit it yet. Possibly even vote against your own best interest, and perhaps have given youself too much credit for whatever degree of success you have found so far. Just guessing on my part, but it probably wouldn't hurt to give it some deep thought and examine your goals and values. Good luck--

Hunter..."Reagan is the guy who invented deficit spending - borrowing from the future to have fun today."

Yep, but he inherited a terrible economy. Or does that argument only work for Obama?

Was it the Democrats that started stealing from the Social Security "TRUST" fund in the '60's so they wouldn't have to claim a deficit?

And I believe there were some Democrats in Congress that voted for some of Reagan's bills.

THANK YOU Gemeni.

Finally another rational being who understands how many "social" programs the right-wing uses while they purport to"forge their own success". To be honest, most of the super wealthy receive more free hand-outs than the average working class or poor american.

They don't have to spend a good portion of their lifetime building credit to acquire loans. They get a free ride on tuition at schools. They fly for free, shack up in hotels for free, and eat for free. Or rather, I should say, these costs are pushed onto other consumers (because there's no such thing as a free lunch, right? Except for them...always amusing how they violate their own ideology on a regular basis).

And why do they get these perks? Because they HAPPENED to be born a Kennedy, or a Hilton, or a Jackson. A majority of them are no smarter than the average guy, they're just forgiven more for their mistakes. I mean, how many times did Donald Trump file bankruptcy or almost file for bankruptcy?

Why we cater for and try to maintain this sort of inequitable system is beyond me. Buy local. Jump off the celebrity train.

The rich are smarter and know how money works

You are wrong. The majority of the rich were born rich and have paid advisers to tell them how to stay rich. The "Rags to Riches" stories are mostly fictional. Most of the wealthy are terrible with money have have business managers who actually manage their money for them.

Ever watch the pawn shows? Very interesting. Many bring in articles that over time will continue to go up in value. Instead they want to sell those objects at a discount in order to GAMBLE. I understand those that NEED to sell, but to sell because you want to have a big night is ridiculous. This is why America is circling the drain. We waste money and have no respect for it.

Seriously? Those shows are STAGED! All of the....."Hardcore Pawn". "Pawn Stars", "Auction Hunters", "Storage Wars", Etc.......all staged. Most people pawn things to get by and it's normal household items, not the stuff you see on television.

Hey "the boys"...not only are you a tax cheat, but you are part of the problem....The wealth disparity in this country is back to where it was at the start of the Great Depression.....a clue here?....and the rich are NOT smarter....they are just willing to cheat on their taxes (like you) and steal what ever they can from whom ever they can (possibly you too). Greed pure and simple...nothing to do with smarts.....criminals aren't smart...they're just greedy and don't care who they hurt.

I'm no fan of the Republican Party, but most of you Democrats have allowed illegal aliens to flood into this country for decades. And now, after it's too late, you're whining about low wages and foreign workers.

And, of course, there also are all the good jobs that you Democrats forced overseas by supporting greedy labor unions. Those jobs used to be here in America, but you Democrats supported overpaying union workers to such an extreme degree that it became necessary to send the jobs overseas so businesses and industries wouldn't go bankrupt and have to be bailed out at taxpayer expense.

GO DO YOUR WHINING SOMEWHERE ELSE, DEMOCRATS! NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR IT! YOU GOT WHAT YOU VOTED FOR!

And only weeks ago, good ol' Obama was busy buying votes from Hispanics by telling them he would suspend the law for them -- no deportations for illegals! And Obama tried to buy votes from public schoolteachers with his foolhardy, disingenuous, meaningless scheme to try to reform America's largely failed public education system. Obama's "brilliant" plan was to relax standards, so public schoolteachers would vote for him. The plan is so stupid, the liberal media didn't publicize it much for fear that everyone would see what an incompetent Obama is.

Every day Obama is in office, America sinks lower and lower.

examiner.com/article/obama-has-quietly-made-it-impossible-to-deport-almost-anyone

nytimes.com/2012/07/27/education/varied-plans-for-states-with-waivers-no-child-law.html

Exactly! Lower taxes on the rich so they can afford to pay me more than minimum wage to lick their boots. Or at least allow me to lick their boot more often. Stop funding education. An educated workforce just demands higher wages. Make the environment just a source of raw materials and a dumping ground for waste.

Huh. I think I just became a Republican!

SRS- did it hurt?

No, it didn't hurt. My brain just stopped functioning. No brain, no headaches. It's GREAT to be a member of the GOP!

So you got rich when your brain stopped functioning? That's what you implied.

Just more pathetic liberal lies. It is democrats that killed education by backing teachers unions. It is they that are responsible for the dumbing down of America.

You can't expect a high paying job if you are too dumb to do it.

"Want higher pay without waiting a lifetime for it? Job hop."

Agreed, high horse. I wish I could cite specific sources, but I've been reading for years that the most effective way for many (not all) people to secure better raises and promotions is to change jobs every 3-5 years...

And just how does this help the economy? I mean, I agree with you and am currently looking for a new job because the one I have just cut my pay, along with everyone else. But why is this NOW necessary?

Could it be CORPORATE CEO GREED AND STUPIDITY?

"And just how does this help the economy?"

It doesn't, but I think the mentality is, if the corporations are working the system, why can't we. The corporate mentality and practices are trickling down to the employees. Pro-sports is a prime example of no loyalties what so ever. People get mad when the players switch teams to get paid more from another team, but when teams trade or cut players it's ok.

Job hopping is exactly what a dozen braindead small business owners up above recommended.. If you aren't getting a fair wage at your current job let the dimwitted owner hire 14 people a year to do the same job, eventually it might sink in he should be blowing less money on his secretary and more on the guys actually doing the work that makes the company profitable... Or let it go bust, who really cares?

If they can't even bother to match inflation most years, why should you stick around wasting your finite amount of time enriching their greedy, unthankful ass?

SRS- you seem to be pretty brilliant, why don't you just become one of these people higher up the ladder that are keeping you down instead of complaining to us about them? Problem solved.

why don't you just become one of these people

It's not who you know, its who you blow - like most of us he probably doesn't like the taste of success. Your average middle class worker has more chance of being hit by lightning than getting invited to the privileged buddy buddy club at the top of most companies. It isn't 1/100, its 1/10000 who invites a few of his buddies to join him at the top.

I've heard of people actually being entrepreneurs, I wonder if that would be an option for our highly intelligent friend...

Go and count the jobs bills the GOP has originated. There aren't any.

The jobs bills are there. They are jobs bills. But they contain provisions that the left doesn't like, so they try to claim that they are not jobs bills. They try to say that the Repubs are lying, when it is in fact, leftist economists and journalists who are being deceitful.

High unemployment benfits the GOP constituency which is the wealthy.

So, the GOP constituency is 1% of the population? That makes a lot of sense...if you're an idiot. And you don't strike me as an idiot.

Unions are ok in the private sector only, but they're still not the answer. There is an abundance of cheap labor in the U.S. Which is why it still confuses me that we have an entire political body of Democrats and liberals hell-bent on receiving and harboring as many illegal and undocumented workers as they can possibly get, and all the while blaming Republicans for the downward pressure that those policies put on wages.

I was just reading congressional testimony of a study by the Brookings Institute that analyzed census data and concluded that a person who:

1. Graduates high school

2. Works full time

3. Waits until the age of 21 before getting married and THEN having a baby

Has only a 2% chance of being "poor" and a 72% chance they will be in the middle class (defined at 2010 levels as making $55k+ per year). For people who break all three rules, it's the opposite. They have a 77% chance of being poor, and a 4% chance of joining the middle class.

So, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, we all want to blame the government for failing to fix all our problems. But sooner or later, we will have to place the bulk of the responsibility where it belongs: on the citizens and the choices they make.

Here's a link. It's an interesting read about poverty:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/06/05-poverty-families-haskins

"The jobs bills are there. They are jobs bills. But they contain provisions that the left doesn't like, so they try to claim that they are not jobs bills."

Sure they contain job creating provisions, but they also contain poison pills with laws completely unrelated to job creation. It's called Hoodwinking.

But instead of passing something that both parties would agree on and provide at least some minimal relief, we're stuck in this cycle of self destruction.

Great kg14051. Blame the victim. You cut education funding (at least your lapdog Governor Walker here in Wisconsin did), you cut public health programs, you cut EVERYTHING that might raise people up to give tax breaks to the rich (and don't deny it, YOU DID) THEN you blame them?

How about this?

We take 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of every dollar over a million from EVERY ESTATE so that the rich START OUT LIKE THE REST OF US, THEN see how well you do.

Your pal MITTENS probably would be living under a bridge. As he well deserves. DO NOT say WE ALL WERE BORN ON THIRD BASE SO WE MUST HAVE HIT A TRIPLE.

DISGUSTING. UN-AMERICAN.

kg14051

More tax cuts for the elite is not a "jobs" bill. Rich people are not "job creators." Rich people will hire people when there is a demand for something they can make a profit at. If they have all the money, there is no one left to demand anything. Get it?

Completely unrelated to job creation? SOME, perhaps, but most criticisms are just political rhetoric. For example, the Republicans in Congress want more oversight and control over the EPA, so the left is up in arms because they think that will lead to companies dumping toxic waste into rivers like in the old days(which is completely ridiculous).

Can you even imagine something that both sides could agree on that is not packed with all manner of pork or even "hoodwinking" for both sides?

they think that will lead to companies dumping toxic waste into rivers like in the old days(which is completely ridiculous).

And there is the source of the problem on the Republican side. They prey on the naive and convince them that the rules are unnecessary because no honest person would ever do harm to others. So what about the dishonest ones? Sure there are plenty of people and companies doing the right thing; but not all do, and that is why we need regulation.

Unregulated capitalism would work if everyone was honest; sadly, as long as humans are involved, that will never be the case. Look where it got us with the banks; and that deregulation problem is still not fixed, there is still more pain to come.

You cut education funding (at least your lapdog Governor Walker here in Wisconsin did), you cut public health programs, you cut EVERYTHING that might raise people up to give tax breaks to the rich (and don't deny it, YOU DID) THEN you blame them?

I cut nothing. And I don't live in Wisconsin. Nice try, though. Taxing the rich won't even come close to fixing the mess we're in.

Blame the victim? Who has "victimized" these "victims"? Who are the perps? Who made these young people drop out of high school? Who made them fail to obtain full time employment? Who made them have babies out of wedlock?

Why don't you try reading that analysis on poverty that I linked to above? You might learn something besides thinking that government spending can solve all the world's problems.

In your idea of america, if someone is a millionaire and someone else isn't, that's not fair. You apparently think that people are victims of their circumstances. You made that perfectly clear in your statements. I believe in personal choice and accountability; that every person is in control of their life and they choose how to live it and are responsible for their own success or failure. I believe that my legally obtained property or wealth is mine and that no other human being has right or claim to it, and I respect that same right with regard to the property of others. I believe in taking care of people, such as the elderly or disabled, that are unable to care or provide for themselves. As part of that, I believe that you cannot help an able-bodied person improve their life if they are not willing to help themselves also, which is why any and all government assistance to able-bodied citizens must be conditional. I believe that goverment is necessary and useful, but it is not the answer to everything. If my beliefs make me unamerican, then I am unamerican and I'm proud of it. I can't imagine how dark and dreary and oppressive and BROKE your america would be. I hope you and people like you never get your way.

whats ina name -

I absolutely agree we need regulation, for exactly the reasons you outlined. Maybe I'm missing something, but I have not heard of anyone campaigning to eliminate the EPA. I know from my republican senators from my state, that they would like to have more congressional oversight over the actions taken by the EPA, but they do not endorse shutting it down. The point I was trying to make was that some are trying to make congressional oversight seem tantamount to dismantling and I think it's a gross overexaggeration used to fuel political divisiveness. In that sense, I think the naivety exists on both sides.

Do you not think it wise to regulate the regulators?

Of course nobody talks about eliminating the EPA (except for Bachman, Gingrich, and Ryan), that would make too much of a splash. Instead, they slip in riders into the budget or other bills to de-fund them, and other agencies, with the intention of making them practically inoperable. What good is a regulator that can't enforce?

I will give you that some regulation is burdensome, sometimes unnecessary, and if overdone can tend to kill new start ups. And regulation does not kill jobs, like the Republican party likes to point out; If anything it creates them, someone needs to fill all those forms and execute compliance. The regulations will tend to reduce profits, however.

De-funding the EPA is like telling the police to go stop a riot wearing nothing but their underwear.

Looking for oversight? It's called a congressional hearing, which has been available for a very long time.

kg14051

1. Graduates high school

I graduated from high school and college

2. Works full time

Since, age 16 (the age I graduated from H.S.) I have been a full-time employee and at times held a full-time job and a part-time job.

3. Waits until the age of 21 before getting married and THEN having a baby

I had my first and only child at the age of 26. Married at 24.

Based on the information you listed, I should be financially stable. But I'm not. I have enough money to pay for food, clothing, mortgage, car, power, etc., but I have nothing left over to save for my future. One thing about studies, you can spin them to reflect whatever opinion you want.

Yup, at Sparkles. I graduated high school, college (magna cum laude), law school, (magna cum laude), married at 27 (after practicing law starting at 24), had children (didn't expect twins!) at 28 and have worked full-time since graduating from law school. I married an engineer with NO college loans. We have don't have much left after paying bills and we have NOTHING in retirement. We don't have a huge house or a lot of fancy things. I haven't had a raise in 4 years and we were just told not to expect a raise for at least another 3-4 years. I have been searching or a new job for months and have yet to find one despite the fact that I have very marketable skills. The fact is, I'm lucky to have a job in this economy.

It is not that easy!!

Way to oversimplify things. How do you track the hours of someone in HR who gets a phone call about sexual harassment while she's at a picnic on a Saturday? What about the development engineer who opens his laptop a dozen times on a Sunday to log ideas and tweak designs as inspiration strikes? You can't put everyone on hourly plans. Some people are paid based on what they deliver or what they produce.

Stop the H1B Visas, How about rounding up the 10 Million or So Illegal Aliens who will work for a lot less. At least the H1B Visas are done legally, we know how many and where they are. It's a hot tip something is wrong when over 30% of Mexico's GDP is Money sent home from the Illegals sponging here. We shouldn't be allowing the wages that are earned here to be sent to Mexico to be a crutch for their economy and not ours. But we just made it legal for all the spawn of illegals to get the free ride, OBamnesty, a demonstration in reward for Illegal Behavior. I could agree with one provision, if they have or are serving in the Military Period.

It would be better to eliminate hourly pay and put everyone on a salary...OT is one of the most abused issues for employers...I can remember when field engineers were paid to sit around wathcing oprah all day and then paid OT when thye actually went and did something...we had guys making six figures in the 80's...

Well Styro, that's call working. And when one works, they should be paid!

After retiring from the Army, I worked my way up from desktop support, network engineer, developer, and now a software project manager. Salary is crap. I'm tired of working 12 (yes, even 14 hrs) days and getting the same pay as if I did only 8 hours per day. If there's that much work, hire more frilling people instead of running someone into the ground, throw them away, and start the whole stupid process over again.

Eagle is right. Sometimes simplification is the answer. Ever hear of the acronym KISS? Keep It Simple Stupid

This would be a disaster for call centers. Lower management is made up of former floor workers who are trying to get a foot onto the career ladder. They go from an hourly wage to a salary, then are given so much work that they must put in 60-75 hour per week in order to get it done. By the time all is said and done, they wind up making less per hour worked than the people they supervise....and have next to no chance to reach the next rung of the ladder, because there are only maybe 5-6 management positions in the center that are above that level, with perhaps 70-75 lower managers all waiting for one of them to open up (which never happens, because the people with those jobs aren't going anywhere).

We have five open positions in an IT department of ten, including the open positions. We are all paying more for our benefits so our pay is really down. Overtime is not authorized but you better get your work done. Upper management just increased their salaries. We just hired another manager. I am starting to get migraines and my performance is slipping.

NICE JOB, MANAGEMENT. ENJOY YOUR RAISE!

Hey ByTheBorder - right on! It's not just the Mexicans sending the money home. Somalians are all about sending money home. Lord knows they need it but there are more groups who send out $$ and don't spend it here.

Welcome to the New American Feudalism, where the ultra wealthy are the new lords and the rest of us are just peasants.

Blame it on the Supreme Court. Corporations are people, Money is speech.

The GOP is insane.

Did anyone notice that the article just says that pay has been flat since 2000? Does anyone remember what else happened in 2000? Who was elected President? Right, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

How come nobody blames inflation? If it wasn't for the federal reserve our dollar would be sound! We make good money, the problem is the FED and our government have devalued the dollar to the breaking point! The dollar is the problem, not the wage.

How come nobody blames inflation?

Because inflation has nothing to do with stagnant wages for the bottom 80% of us and exploding wages for the top 10%

Steve Aton. BINGO

We have gone form a pay scale for everyone to the worker getting less and less to CEO's getting more and more. The People at the top have to have there bonuses even if the company is loosing money. I heard some Jackass stating that they had a contract. No contract gives you a bonus for loosing money, Bonuses are based on performance. Now days they teach these kids that go to collage, how to work the numbers, Cook the books if you will. They will let the building fall apart, lay people off, Not buy supply's..... just so the numbers look good so they get there bonuses. That is short sited. I just did a short term stent with a company like that. I worked for a resort that took in over 4 million last year. The rooms are in such disrepair that customers were leaving there to go to Super 8. Over 4 million dollars taken in and 0 dollars to repair the building. There was no reason in the world to have a maintenance Dept. They didn't let us fix anything. That hurt the bottom line. But Man did they charge top dollar for the rooms with the ceiling's falling in.

Since 1980 the pay for a working male is flat, however CEOs have experienced 1000% growth since then.

That's an economic model that won't last long.

They do it just because they can get away with it. If everyone else is doing it, nobody can complain, and the money 'saved' goes right to the top.

Eventually they will make enough people mad that a new labor movement will crop up.

It's a pendulum, and it will eventually swing hard the other way, and with a vengeance. They just refuse to see it, at some point their greed will bring their own demise.

Don't bet on it. If the GOP takes over, they have already stated their next target is public sector unions.

I think I may move to China so I can get a RAISE!

In this current climate, it's no wonder everything's falling to chit. Who were the brains behind this wonderful idea (NAFTA)?

George Bush Sr.

Fair trade, not free trade. If the country of origin does not have acceptable labor laws, they can't import. If they do not have adequate environmental protection laws, they can't import.

Pretty simple, really. Too bad the GOP is run by multinational corporations instead of human beings.

Wait'a'minute...I thought corporations WERE people?!

*rolls eyes*

Gotta take Congress to task - Obama is in a position of damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Maybe Michelle Bachman can focus her energy on something more worthwhile than vilifying Muslims who work in Congress and the State Dept.

It isn't the lack of understanding, it's the utter and complete lack of compassion or the capability to empathize with a working person's plight. And that's the nation we live in...a modern version of France, circa 1750.

BS, reaper. It's the realization that while we'd like to be able to provide everything for everyone, money is a finite thing so we can't. It's also the belief that people should be rewarded for their success and not rewarded for bad behavior or poor decisions....children learn that at an early age. Why can't libs?

Oh please? France in 1750? We are nothing like that. We are good to our poor. Really! I just heard Mittens make a nice offer to the poor.

He said, "Let them eat cake"...

I do not begrudge children of single mothers receiving Medicaid to take care of the childs healthcare and WIC for their nutrition needs. What I fail to understand is we provide it without a birth certificate with the fathers name and social security number. There would be a lot fewer unwed mothers if we held the fathers accountable. As it is now, it is an impediment to marriage.

ir12: It's hard to argue against the principle of what you just said, but the practicality of it means letting a child starve if the father was a John Doe.

I have no problem taking care of John Doe's kids, if there is no name on the birth certificate. But I seriously doubt there are that many of them.

EXACTLY! Henry Ford, from when America was GREAT, was a DEMAND SIDER. IT WORKED, unlike supply side that has NEVER EVER WORKED.

Henry Ford's big discovery was not the assembly line, that had been in operation since the Civil War. It was that YOU PAY YOUR WORKERS ENOUGH TO BUY YOUR PRODUCT!

I worked at a call center for several years. The minute the economy started to soften, the company that ran it, Convergys, started to tighten their attendance and other policies. Why? So they could fire more workers who had been there for years and were earning higher pay, and bring in more new workers, who would be making a few dollars an hour less.

The great part of this for them was, they didn't have to pay to train workers. The local government, in order to get Convergys to bring business to the city, had agreed to pay for their "job training" program. What this led to was an exceptionally high turnover rate....after all, who cares how many workers you go through if you aren't paying to train them?

In the end, they just packed everything up, sent everyone home, and moved 1500 jobs to the Philippines, where the workers were making the equivalent of $2-3 an hour. You can talk about taxes and medical costs all you want, when workers are willing to work for 1/4th to 1/5th of what is a "barely scrape by" wage in the USA, the jobs are bound to keep flowing out like water through a sieve.

And your reason for thinking so? Outside of "I just don't like him" or "that's what I heard". I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you have no base in that reasoning which is pretty fu*king stupid.

Reaper, about as fu*king stupid as saying Romney wants to destroy the middle class and give everything to the 1% or that Repubs want to destroy medicare/medicaid or want to re-enslave minorities! Don't be the pot calling the kettle black!

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. ROMNEY is the one that is proposing a budget that puts us WAY DEEPER in debt.

Typical FAUX NEWS facts. PLEASE GET A BRAIN!

SRS,

Mitt Romney's budget actually puts us less in debt than President Obama's.

That is the problem either way we go our national debt goes up.

You're wrong. Companies build oversees because it's cheaper. If they repeal NAFTA and start imposing tariffs on imports companies will stay in the US because it's cheaper.

You can't just yell "buy american" as the answer. Consumers have only so much disposable income they can't throw money away on the same product and expect the rest of the country to do so as well. Plus if you're in competition with a rival company you can't have higher costs even if you wanted to remain in the US or you'll be out of business. What you need is regulation and an even playing field for all rivals. That's why tariffs were invented.

Sam Walton (founder of Walmart) was big on selling 'made in America' products. He died in 92, and since then the company has been all about squeezing every penny they can get from customers, suppliers, and employees.

EXACTLY. All the public sector jobs grew and the pay grew because we were making enough to support it.

The advent of outsourcing has ensured that there is a glut of overqualified people now for relatively unskilled jobs with low pay....Low pay equals low tax revenue equals not enough to support the now bloated public sector.....

NAFTA was a no brainer as to what was going to really happen. I couldn't believe people weren't marching in the streets...I laugh when GOPer's blame that one on Clinton....

Everyone shopping at Wal - Mart is a no brainer as to the end result....lower pay, lower tax revenues....

It's called a nation in decline.

Plus half the workers at wal-mart are on public assistance meanwhile its 5 owners make billions.

No, They are sitting on their asses with no college education or even a G.E.D. They expect to get the same pay as a C.E.O. and not do anything to earn it. They eat, @!$%#, and bitch all day. What a waste of a sperm cell and an ovary.

You are obviously very smart because you have a degree. You should start your own business tomorrow. You will be rich by the end of the year. Good luck!

First you don't say what kind of degree you have. In this economy that's as important as the fact that you have it and second 25? Really and you're frustrated?

My heavens are you in for some shocks in life. Most people work 10 -15 years before they start to see their salaries really climb even if they do have a college degree.

Mom and Dad didn't do you any favors. Welcome to the real world kid. The competition is brutal.

Obviously have the wrong degree. The company I work for pays interns still in college $15/hr just hoping they will apply for opening when they graduate.

Of course they all are working on engineering degrees of one form or another.

MJ - firstly, I'm from a single parent home since I was 16. I started working when I was 16 so anything I got be it a car, stuff for school, or savings for college came from me.

I have a triple major Degree in Business and Accounting.

I'd love to finish up my JD, but I can't afford it now. Despite having "low" student debt, I had to stall my JD and work. I cut all expenses that I can and try to live smart. No TV, minimum phone plans, buy generics, ect...

I don't expect it to be an easy road ahead, but I find it troubling how politicians/ politcal parties can so blantantly say that younger people/post students aren't working hard enough. I'm not sure how much more I can work; I don't have the hours in the day.

I just find myself incredibly irritated, in the case of my former company, busting my butt off working over 60 hours, no weekends, $14/hour while my boss enjoyed a great benefits plan, 6 figure income, and so forth but still complained that he wasn't receiving what he was worth. The guy couldn't even book his own flight....

/miffed

mj - That was a rather mean reply to JR. Typical old person "in my day we had to kill bears with our loose-leaf notebooks" sort of thing. Why shouldn't he feel frustrated at 25 if he's working hard and being frugal and finding it hard to imagine that there's going to be any progress in his future? That situation is frustrating at any age. He isn't sitting around whining; he's working 2 jobs. What do you want from the guy?

JR - A post-grad degree is probably useless anyway. Lord knows, mine is. Even recently minted lawyers can't find jobs (big article in NYT on how they're all working at Starbucks). Just keep saving and keep working and a house will be within your reach eventually, especially since the market is in the toilet. Things will stay affordable for a while before prices rise. You sound like a hard worker and although things are depressing now, it will get better. Don't give up! Good luck!

Two jobs? How uniquely American. (sarc)

Uhh, yeah. Not everyone is like that. My first job was much like JR's above. Despite being college educated with a master's (and no student loans) and in a professional job related to my field, my salary was so low that I lived paycheck-to-paycheck. I drove a 12-year-old (and fully paid) car, cut even the $20 cable plan from my budget, and lived off of pasta with olive oil every night. I took a second job that helped with me by giving me some spending money, but that's all.

It was only when my husband (in IT) and I married that we finally had the disposable income due to 2 salaries that we could save money and build a nest egg. We're still ridiculously cautious, though - no cable TV, no home phone (only VOIP), and two cars that we paid off almost immediately.

Employers like to screw workers, and it's only getting worse.

How about $39.99 for the cheapest available cell plan (and not upgrading to a "smart phone" because the cheapest plan is $30 more per month), no cable, $30 a month for internet that's so slow you can't run Netflix without constant buffering, driving an eight year old Honda with 175k on the odometer, and "dining out" at Chik-Fil-A once every other week?

I love how you assume that no one has any control about how they spend their money. If they can't pay off the loans, they must be living irresponsibly. Brilliant way to totally write off any real problems that people may face meeting a budget in this day and age of reduced wages. Way to wash your hands, Pontius.

Its not the 70's anymore! When a man could support his wife and kids, own a home, car, and still be able to save. Again, inflation is the problem! The cost of everything is through the roof because the dollar is useless. Do the math.

interesting comment about it not being the 70s anymore. what was the standard of living back in the 70s? who had cell phones, computers, internet service, cable/satellite service with TVs in every room, multiple cars, home ownership, fancier appliances, so on and so forth? as a society our rate of consumption to increase our standard of living has outpaced our increase in wages. whose fault is that?

If you don't like it, vote in leaders who believe in a strong nation with a strong currency and a military that protects our borders.

----

How about we have more than just TWO idiots to choose from?

Chaz, if the "Global Corporations" business plan were to have everyone with the same standard of living, wouldn't that plan be for everyone's standard of living to increase? More consumerism and ability to spend means more product consumption, leading to increased profits for those corporations?

Ess Vdb, we do. If people actually wanted this change they will vote libertarian. Since they didn't support Ron Paul.

I agree. And I'm still voting for Ron Paul--even if it means I'm just throwing away my vote. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of the two clowns in the ring now.

NAFTA = lowering the real American wage to that of China and Mexico

If the people currently employed were getting paid more, the increased demand in the economy they would generate would naturally lead to more jobs.

Maybe that's because a 10 year old can do PC repair. And the key word in "unskilled labor" is "LABOR".

Yes just shows how "valuable" that cert is. When you have something that is easy to get it has no value. Just as a generic college degree means nothing because they have made it so easy that everyone has one.

Go look what a CCIE cert gets or a a electrical engineering degree gets you.

If PC repair was so easy a 10-year-old could do it, then there would be no need for businesses like Geek Squad.

Heck, I do PC repair on the side, and I can charge upwards of $20/hr easy. I've had no complaints thus far, considering that by paying me for 2-3 hours' work, I end up saving the customer the cost of a new computer, when all they need it for is web surfing and general gaming.

Yep, Boner & Friends won't raise taxes on the job creators. How about we give them incentives?

If you bring back jobs, you get a tax break. Let's reward performance, not promises.

The global cat is out of the bag. Stuffing him back in will be a monumental task akin to paying down the U.S. deficit. There are far too many International fingers in too many pies now. They are all intertwined. Heck, the government can't even find the parent company when investigating a scam company whose mailing address is an empty lot in the Bronx. The answer is to make a starting point and go forward from there with incentives to bring the jobs back here. Quality, produced by the U.S. market, is the key and is not being produced in the majority of offshore countries.

So it's not so much which party is most at fault, they ALL are. It IS a matter of getting back to OUR politicians answering to WE THE PEOPLE which has not been happening. Remember in November.

So, you are saying that voting in Mitt Romney is going to bring jobs back to America?

So, you are saying that voting in Mitt Romney is going to bring jobs back to America?

Only way jobs are coming back is with tariffs and vastly more discretionary income in the hands of the middle class, I don't see how I bet you $10000 Rmoney is going to even acknowedge these issues much less bitchslap his CEO buddies to bring them about.