Harming The Middle Class

Bestboy, I believe your excellent link should be posted over and over again. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2011/11/01/what-are-the-differences-between-the-rich-and-the-poor/ 1.Rich people believe: “I create my life.” Poor people believe: “Life happens to me.” 2.Rich people play the money game to win. Poor people play the money game to not lose. 3.Rich people are committed to being rich. Poor people want to be rich. 4.Rich people think big. Poor people think small. 5.Rich people focus on opportunities. Poor people focus on obstacles. 6.Rich people admire other rich and successful people. Poor people resent rich and successful people. 7.Rich people associate with positive, successful people. Poor people associate with negative or unsuccessful people. 8.Rich people are willing to promote themselves and their value. Poor people think negatively about selling and promotion. 9.Rich people are bigger than their problems. Poor people are smaller than their problems. 10.Rich people are excellent receivers. Poor people are poor receivers. 11.Rich people choose to get paid based on results. Poor people choose to get paid based on time. 12.Rich people think “both”. Poor people think “either/or”. 13.Rich people focus on their net worth. Poor people focus on their working income. 14.Rich people manage their money well. Poor people mismanage their money well. 15.Rich people have their money work hard for them. Poor people work hard for their money. 16.Rich people act in spite of fear. Poor people let fear stop them. 17.Rich people constantly learn and grow. Poor people think they already know. Welfare and all the 'programs' to 'help' actually reinforce this thinking that keeps people from being successful. And it is my opinion, that those who 'design' the welfare programs at the highest level of government know this. Conservatives have been saying these things forever, especially black conservatives. They've pointed out that welfare keeps people dependent and teaches them that they cannot move up, that only the government can save them. The class warfare rhetoric of this administration tells us that it is the rich people's fault, that they are greedy and that we need to take from them to give to the poor. Socialism at its best, Marx taught that there must be 'class warfare' to usher in Socialism. No one denies that the truly poor and helpless should be helped. But dismanteling the welfare reforms of the Clinton years by Obama is just a move to make more dependent, buy their votes and cause the eventual CRASH of our economy, not a rescession, but a true depression that will usher in REAL socialism or worse. The executive orders of this administration give OBAMA dictatorial powers in a 'crisis'. They're there to be used. This link describes a complete strategy to collapse the system. We are in the final stages of this strategy. IF Obama gets reelected, he will finish it. And we will no longer have those safety nets we're arguing about, because there will be NO RICH to pay for them. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html

If all the rich leave because of taxes to countries that may tax them higher than here, then they are idiots. It takes one person in another country to say... "Hey, we have all this money coming in, we can raise taxes higher to do more for our people instead of selfish foreigners". I had also answered the question, people on both sides are hurting them. Not one more than the other but equally. The wealthy who would just abandon their country because they want to keep more money than one person could ever spend in a life time and the welfare recipients who don't want to find a job. Once again I never count the welfare recipients that are working or had been laid off from those that have the money to create jobs or make more. Those people were "screwed" by whomever owns their country. Also Deb that last one number 17 is false. Rich people don't constantly learn and grow anymore than poor people. In fact, if they did then some of them might be able to do math and realize that they wouldn't be paying much more in taxes than they are now. Rich people whine about a few million dollars, poor people just want to be able to survive. It doesn't seem like he has planned to raise it above 40% from what he says. So.. if I had forty million dollars and had to pay 40% on it.. I would still have twenty four million dollars and I'd be able to live. Maybe all Americans should stop whining and once again learn to live within their means. You don't need a house with 10 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms, you need enough for your family and maybe a guest if you wish. Too many Americans are in the "I need tennis courts, pools, and the newest available foreign sports car" mentality to give a heck about their country.

I meant to put the word "Company" and not country. I was multitasking when I typed out the reply.

I don't doubt for one minute that someone who loses a job is grateful for unemployment compensation, but what about those who stay on it rather than looking for a job because the government keeps increasing the time they can collect unemployment? Who has to pay for those individuals? The tax payers pay for them. There are some people who need aid, those who are disabled, or elderly. No one wants to deny them the help they need, but how do you feel about paying welfare for an able body person? What do you think that cost the taxpayers? Do you really think the social programs in Europe are working? If they are working, why are so many countries financially strapped? This may come as a surprise to you, but hospitals in America don't turn people away. That's one of the reasons medical cost are so high. Neither wealth nor welfare should hurt the middle class, but I believe welfare does because it takes but never gives.

Debra, this is just my point. The middle class can't sustain this level of forced responsibility. I don't doubt, though that that is the idea. One might think the wealthiest among us are not paying their fair share of the taxes, but at least they are paying taxes not to mention other benefits they give to our nation. It's those who give nothing (those on welfare) and demand all who are hurting the middle class and not just the middle class but the whole nation, themselves included. I think it's interesting how the radicals will find, "...every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet,..." but fell to see the responsibilities of the poor. Yes those who have should help those who have not. In the Old Testament, the edges of fields were left for the poor, but the poor had to gather the grain themselves. It's called working. In the New Testament Paul said, "If a man doesn't work, nor should he eat." So if society is going to use the Judaeo-Christian tenets to justify helping the poor, they should use all the tenets. That is what they are not doing and that is why our nation is in the financial mess it is in. Just my humble opinion.

Unless you are in school or a job training program, you have to report job searches while on unemployment. And unemployment is not all paid by the government, the employer also pays a share when a claim is made. In a 'perfect' system those paying taxes for there to be welfare are more than those needing the welfare. But in America, the government is pushing for there to be MORE welfare programs, more than are really needed. Have you read up on the very REAL Cloward Pivens Strategy? If those eligible for welfare demand more than what is fair or necessary, the wealthy will be unfairly taxed to pay for it. That is exactly what is taking place in America today. And sadly, the American people who truly do need help in this 'manufactured' crisis are the ones who truly need help and are not getting it. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

That's a good perspective. I think if certain rich people would look at things like that. They would quit screwing the rest of us by rigging the system. Some of these people have enough money to last 100 lifetimes. Why do they insist on being so hell bent about shipping jobs overseas having their money in foreign accounts when they already have enough money to last 100 lifetimes. There is no possible way to spend that much money in one's lifetime. All it is going to do is just sit there and earn another enormous pile of money off of interest. It just baffles me how greedy some people really are. I am not saying Bill gates is because I do not think he is the one rigging the system. It's people like Mitt Romney, Wall Street, and everyone else who is shipping our jobs overseas and not wanting to pay taxes. If you think about it these people are really hurting themselves. That is because they are gaming the system so bad that it could cause a eventual collapse and cause a global meltdown. That is the only way these people could loose all of their money, well besides some Armageddon type thing. So it would be in their best interest to make sure everyone has a fair shot at a decent life.

In all honesty I wouldn't consider someone who actually works and earns $250,000 a year rich, and neither would the truly rich people. The reality is it's hard to wrap you're head around what the truly rich in America are and how they make that much money. The cut off for the top 10% of earners is actually surprisingly low, passing roughly the $100,000/year mark will put you in the top 10%. That's why people really focus on the top 1%. The richest of the rich don't even work really, they make their money from what they own and invested in. And yes investment should be rewarded but there needs to be a reasonable limit. Let me put this in perspective Bill Gates at once point had a net value of roughly $50 billion. That's the roughly the FY 2012 GDP of Arizona, that's the combined production of 6.8 million people for one year. Now that's an extreme example. But there are quite a descent number of people who are making as much money as $500,000 workers make in an entire year. Windows did indeed revolution computers and stimulate the economy for a period of time. But to think that one person has more money than 6.8 million people could earn in a year is a bit far fetched. To put that in perspective, you'd have to do you're job for roughly 6,800,000 years to make that much money.

I would have stated those making over $750,000 are rich. Most people can't even find a decent home for a family of four in some areas for less than $250,000. If I made $250,000 a year though I wouldn't complain with higher taxes. My family and I are surviving and much less, but we keep making it work. Barely... I may add, but we are surviving. It is all about knowing how to manage what you have plus we do odd jobs like babysitting or I help people with their finances and other stuff. Encouraging laziness is always a problem BUT the American people don't realize that they do NOT want 0% unemployment. That will cause the economy to stall as well and cause a lot of unrest with the people. 0% unemployment means that every job position is filled. That means other people looking for work will not be able to find it. The housing market wouldn't go anywhere (up or down) because pretty much everyone with a job would have an apartment or house they live in. Welfare would get worse, because then the government (or whomever wants elected) will have to answer to the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who can't afford anything because there is no unemployment for them to be able to find a job and pay for anything. Both the welfare and wealthy are hurting people, BUT you are right in saying that the problem is encouraging laziness. However, not everyone can have a job or the scenario I just mentioned will most likely happen. That being said 8.2% unemployed (I believe it was last time someone mentioned it) isn't as bad as 20 or 30% unemployed.

Perhaps what we need is for the government to curbed its spending habits.

I would say, for now, our worst off are in pretty good shape compared to the same in other countries. I would questions though, how long will it last and how many more might be added if things continue as they are?

There are many who would argue that. But I guess it depends on which country you choose to compare to. If you compare us to countries like Canada and many modern European countries our worst off are doing pretty poorly. If you compare us to Africa, then our homeless are living in Disney World and you shouldn't even worry about losing your home. Either way we have a quickly growing population of people who are barely making enough to live on and it's going to destroy a country that thrives on consumerism.

@knoodleknight18: You know a lot of people don't think of it like that. It really all depends on where you are looking, but that is for anything. I wonder why people always compare things to the worst situations and assuming because it isn't that bad, that things aren't bad. I guess mentally it is more calming to the mind.

I missed it. What is that good solution?

Why wouldn't unemployment go through the roof when one is encouraged in that direction? What has welfare, school lunch programs, medicaid, unemployment compensation, and food stamps, just to name a few social programs, cost the American taxpayer?

The rich have money and power because they did the work that got them the money and power. I am saying this to all those who want what the wealthy have. Do the work they did. It's not our job to do something about the rich. It's our job to do something about ourselves. Stop complaining if you're not going to make the effort. I can say this because it applies to me.