Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had always been one to believe that the way to make it is to be a self made man. I set about to do so, went to college, and run a very nice business. The only reason I preface with that is in anticipation to the conservative "you're just a cry-baby" attack that I know would come if I did not.
But lately, I have been considering things from a different point of view than before. It has caused me to begin to see the conservative notion of lower/middle class upward mobility to be an illusion. A thinly veiled illusion just barely masking a nearly medieval caste system, where the rich really do just get richer, and the poor, without some sort of leveller of the playing field, will continue to struggle.
No illusion ... otherwise, the middle and upper middle class (which once made up a large majority) never would have existed. And the death of this middle class that we see happening today is not the result of conservative policies. What has transpired is a culmination of forces seated in, and facilitated by the liberal policies of tax and spend ... stealing from one to give to another. This has always been the liberal position, and has led to the extreme debt negatively affecting our economy today, along with a healthy dose of cronyism from the top levels who have stacked the deck in their favor. The middle and upper middle class are the true victims here ... being robbed from the top, and parasitically fed on from the bottom.
The traditional conservative position has always espoused limited government, limited taxes, and limited spending. And these are the fundamental underpinnings of a vibrant economy, that provides the greatest economic opportunity to those willing to work hard, better themselves, and contribute to society rather subsisting off others labor and efforts.
You are right about one thing .. there is a "class system" ... and it has always been that way. The error comes in with the denial of the legitimacy of that reality, while demanding government impose a system of equality for everyone. This ignores the fundamental fact that not everyone is equal ... not in ability, not in intelligence ... and certainly not equal in drive, determination, work ethic or personal responsibility. (all conservative values, by the way)
And all of the various roles in society, and those that fill them are needed for a well functioning society. We need doctors and farmers, musicians and garbage collectors, teachers and plumbers, and all of the rest of the thousands of jobs that need to be done. Yet, these jobs, like the people who might do them, are by and large not equal or interchangeable.
It is the liberal who cries foul, lamenting the unfairness imposed on the garbage collector in comparison to the heart surgeon, and how unjust it is. It's not unfair .. it's not unjust ... society needs both, and both jobs must be done. The problems begin when you want to relegate the surgeons to garbage duty, while demanding the garbage collector be allowed to perform surgery.
The only legitimate application of equality within a society is to provide "fair" access and opportunity for each individual to develop and exhibit their skills and talents, so that they may assume the roles for which they are best suited. This is best accomplished by non interference of government, and not government programs targeted to provide financial assistance to garbage collectors to attend medical school with monies they steal from everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
Conservatives like to claim that any regulation of business is too much regulation. I say that we can't let the beast completely loose. During America's early history, many of our internal struggles had to do with how much control the government should have over business. Things like tarriffs, workers rights, monopolies, strikes, and socialism were the hot topics, along with government control at either the state or federal level of "personal property", the most famous being slaves.
I am not advocating a socialist state that monitors the very thoughts and movements of it's people, or anything close, but it seems that lately, moderation is in order. I come closer to a view of government regulation not because I believe the government to be the most efficient body to regulate, but the only one. I believe that human life has an inherent value to it. There is worth merely in the property of being human. Yet throughout our history as a race, there has always been a ruling class, and variable degrees of under classes. And there is no doubt that the ruling classes have abused their priviledges, to the suffering of the under classes.
You don't want a lot of regulation .. just the right amount? Who determines what is the right amount? Everyone is going to have their own ideas about how much is right.
This reminds me of a joke ... a man asks a woman ... "Would you have sex with me for a Million dollars"? She says "Sure". The man then says, "how about for 50 dollars"? The woman replies "Heck no, what kind of woman do you think I am anyway"? The man replies ... "we've already determined that .. now we're just haggling over price".
The point is ... you either believe in free market enterprise or you don't. You either support liberty or you don't. There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant ... you either are or you ain't.
Of course, there is no doubt always been an elite wealthy class, and their greed often does impose suffering upon those less fortunate. And this is one of the unfairnesses of life that is as inevitable as breathing. It's a fact of life that will never be eliminated, though should be minimized to the greatest extent possible by ensuring the upward mobility of those below, rather than trying to curtail the gains of those above. After all, expecting those elite to "regulate" themselves is rather foolish since they are the regulators, no?
We don't need government regulating the affairs of free markets ... we need government to do the job the constitution gave them ... to regulate the currency, and international commerce, and stop doing all the other things that ARE NOT THEIR JOB. This would drastically reduce the size of government, and lead to true economic prosperity, rather than the criminal fraud being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve in league with the government. It is this criminal cartel that is disrupting free markets, and causing economic hardships ...not lack of regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
I recognize the charitable donations of many of those who have attained great wealth. But how many hardworking, intelligent people never had the chance? It is true that wealth is passed down from generation to generation, and many times those that have the wealth influence the policies whether they earned the wealth or not. People in that position tend to make policies that keep the wealth (and control) in their own hands.
This is true in America, as well as every other country in the world. But it should not be as true in America. After all, the inscription,
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!",
was not concluded with "so that they may be subjugated to the rule of rabid, rampant, capitalism and their children can work in sweat shops".
We have moved past that, of course, but not without revolt and outcry from the citizens and government. If that had not happened, would businesses have decided that child labor laws were the right thing to do?
Ironically, the second part of my post involves a lack of government intrusion. I have kept you long enough with my ramblings, so I will make this part short.
Conservatives typically believe in keeping most drugs and narcotics illegal, I suppose in the hope of limiting people's access to them. This of course has given rise to an extreme of cartels, illegally trading and making billions off of the sale of drugs on the black market, and as we have seen lately, led to the murder of hundreds or thousands of people.
The more liberal position is to legalize most of the less dangerous drugs. This allows more personal freedom of choice, and would instantly destroy the illegal drug trade(of course). Seems much more logical and humane to me.
For the sake of brevity, I highlighted the above to illustrate your confusion. Apparently, this LIBERAL IDEAL of freedom of choice regarding drugs does not apply to tobacco ... as it is the liberals who are constantly on the attack, demanding more regulations and laws prohibiting tobacco use .. it's sale .. and wishing it to be outlawed altogether ... while claiming conservative support of tobacco companies are placing profits over human health, rather than simply protecting freedom of choice.
This is just one of hundreds of examples ... and just about every single issue regarding government intervention in the personal lives and choices of the people are part of the LIBERAL, not conservative agenda. Ban this and ban that ... regulate this and regulate that ... pick the issue, and this is the liberal mantra.
Why even free speech must be curtailed according to the liberals, because we can't offend anyone .... not even the term "illegal aliens" is acceptable ... they should be referred to as undocumented immigrants!!
I could go on and on here ... but suffice it to say that your claims, in my opinion, are so totally backwards, it defies description. Liberal left socialism is the antithesis of personal freedom and choice, while conservatives believe these freedoms to be paramount.
The right to keep and bear arms, for example, is a hallmark of the conservative platform, while being a constant target of those alleged liberal champions of freedom. I mean really!!! Come on ... you cannot be that blind.
Liberals .... the one thing you all have in common seems to be spending too much time standing on your heads. Try standing upright, and maybe you wouldn't see everything in such an upside down manner.
Actually, you did. This is the part of your post that I am referring to:
NO I didnt.. there is a difference between delegating ones responsibilities, and accepting support. One is temporary, one is perminant..
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
They way you wrote it seemed hypocrital to me, considering many BKs 'erase' debt, then you talk about delegating responsibility. I happen to agree that welfare shouldn't be a permanent situation.
Filing BK is a cancellation of a financial contract.. Person A gives person B credit, person B gives person A x.. Reversing these transactions, giving person A back that credit, and person B back that X, isnt delegating responsibilities, its a cancellation of a contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
Now, it appears that your situation was different than most - chill dude, it's not an attack. I'm looking for some clarification.
My situation is always different than most.. After all, who can file 2 of them simultaniously? Not very many.. But even for most, this does not equate to delegating responsibility, its a cancelation of a contraction. While there might be financial benefits to the parties involved, this financial benefit and the risks come at a cost, often called "interest"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
I'm also curious to know if the bankruptcy affected later business transactions. I'm desparately trying to avoid BK myself, as I hope to be able to open a business in a few years. I've been unemployed since Jan '09 and don't have the funds to do what I wish to do. All the $ I saved before the layoff is going to pay bills. I really don't want to blow my FICO and lose a chance at getting biz loans a few years down.
So, how much did the BK hurt you later on?
If you can avoid BK, do it at all costs. One is far better to simply stop making payments and give up the pledged collateral by defaulting on the debt than BK. While both affects ones credit, BK stays on ones credit longer and is more harmful..
But lately, I have been considering things from a different point of view than before. It has caused me to begin to see the conservative notion of lower/middle class upward mobility to be an illusion. A thinly veiled illusion just barely masking a nearly medieval caste system, where the rich really do just get richer, and the poor, without some sort of leveller of the playing field, will continue to struggle..
Having the government level the playing field for groups of people is not now and never has been a conservative position. A conservative position is to create an environment where individuals who want to raise themselves up can do so and thrive.
If you want to see a real caste system in America, take a look at Hollywood movie actors. They have A, B, C and D Lists and people on the C list never even get a chance to rise up. They are shown scripts within their appointed level in the system and kept at that level by agents and the system. Pick any 10 movies from 10 - 20 years ago and watch the closing credits to see if any actors say from say the 8th actor down in the cast list is currently what you would consider to be a Hollywood star today? Some may be working actors but they never even get a chance to read the script for, audition for or be offered a starring role.
Ok GeorgiaFrog you are right on amost of what you are saying. The rich normally gain wealth and the poor typicaly continue to struggle. Can you tell me how the rich got rich though? Did you know the 80% of our nations millionaires are self made. Did you also know that they still go to work every day and still worry about sending their kid through college and how ther are going to pay for it. Now I'm not saying that the poor people do need help and I'm inclined to help them. if only they help themselves first.
"I assume that you were exclusively privately educated, never walked on a public street, have never driven a car, carry your own air supply, purify your own water, and live amongst individuals who would never consider committing any sort of crime?"
Yes, my parents paid for private Catholic schools until I went to the University of NH (as I said, NH contributes virtually nothing to UNH) and worked my way through there. I have been paying property taxes for other's people's kids since my first house at age 23, and did not have kids to impose costs on the system.
The public roads in NH were built and paid off a long time ago. Also, I'm sure the $12,000 a year I give to my town more than covers the impact of my husband and I.
Driven a car? I am to be grateful to government for being allowed to drive the car I paid for and pay insurance on? You truly must believe all rights and privileges flow from Government: the "Government is God" philosophy.
And government is responsible for air and water now! All praise God-Government! I have a private well (with filtration system) and septic system, so yes I purify my own water.
I breathe the same air our Founding Fathers breathed when they set forth the ideals of extremely limited government. As to Government making regulations requiring clean air, ask me to explain about how much toxic waste the trash incinerator pours into the atmosphere in West Palm Beach. Government is happy to make regulations (exempting itself, naturally), as long as they are approved by the affected Big Businesses.
As to crime, the only crime we have is juvenile delinquents breaking into houses (as in most suburbs). The police and court system have absolutely refused to deal with this problem, since it doesn't know how to handle juveniles, and also since juvenile crime doesn't hurt government. In fact, it will get liberals crying for "more police"--even though we all know these cops will be sitting at speed traps, handing out tickets to people coming home from work. In 4 different homes over the years, I had my house broken into once in Florida and several times in NH. Twice I investigated on my own with the neighborhood kids, who willingly told me which delinquents had done the crimes. I reported the names to the police and was roundly threatened NOT to approach the kids or let them know I knew they had broken into my house, because said delinquents would use the police against me with claims of "harrassment." Of course fingerprints were never taken and there was absolutely no follow-up.
And when living in RI, my car was stolen from the Mall. The police told me it had been stolen by the "Prospect Heights Gang" and that it would be found the next day stripped in Providence. It was, but the Providence Police took 6 weeks to notify us that we had our car frame racking up huge "storage fees" in police impound. That cost me over $1,000 in addition to the loss of the car. Again, no police investigation or follow-up. Get the pattern? Government promises protection in return for huge amounts of money, but NEVER DELIVERS!
"Funny, I spent the entire day conducting business and don't recall a single moment of micro management. By the way, even Bill Gates doesn't pay 50% of his income in taxes. Either you are given to wild hyperbole or you need a new accountant."
You obviously don't own your own business, if you are not familiar with government micro-management, nor are do you manage a Department or larger. Ever fished? Hunted? Tried to get a NH boat license after owning boats your whole life? Owned a dog? Driven (inspections, registrations, licenses)? Sold your car? Fixed up a family home or business property? Bought a business? Owned property within 250' of salt marsh grass or a wetland? Kept the books for your income taxes and done them yourself? Inherited/bought/sold property? Tried to hire household help?
As to taxes, I don't doubt Bill Gates pays very little in taxes. That's the way your God-Government has set things up. The people who get nailed with taxes are the Middle Class, particularly a 2-income professional family in their 50s. Try adding up the social security taxes (double them since your employer pays half), Medicare taxes, and income taxes. You lose all deductions once you reach about $150,000, which is not high given that NH charges $12,000 a year in property taxes for an average house and property is still very pricey here.
I have had several accountants, tax experts, and CPAs review our tax situation. The analysis is always identical: you are the primary target of tax revenues, and you can't find any deductions because there aren't any for you.
'Either you family has the expertise to make improvements to code or they don't. Obviously if you need to hire "experts" your family doesn't have the expertise that you claim." The "experts" are required by government for the Building Permit: surveyors, NH certified soils scientists, state certified Master Electricians, certified plumbers, etc. None of these experts are necessary to the building process, only the government bureaucracy. Since our family members have all the these skills needed to build a house, but do not practice them as a profession, it would be ridiculous to spend the money and time to become "state certified." Our family has built 5 houses to date for various family members, and we do have both rough and fine carpenters, a General Contractor, a civil and a mechanical engineer, and one versatile individual who has mastered electrical systems and plumbing decades ago (and has re-built over 7 cars as a hobby).
"Since very little of the healthcare program has come on line, I think that it is a bit premature to for a cost benefit analysis."
There is PLENTY of analysis out there already on the effects of various parts of legislation. You do not have to wait for the $650 billion in taxes to actually be collected before you can understand that $650 billion EXTRA dollars will be flowing out of the public sector and into the hands of government.
"I still dying to know what possible tax bracket you are in to be paying taxes at a rate of 50%."
Here's a hypothetical professional couple at the height of their careers, making a total of $250,000 a year, married filing jointly:
--FICA and Medicare: 7.65% directly from the couple, 7.65% from the employers = 15.3% (and please don't argue that the employer part "doesn't count" because the employer MUST pay it and the worker don't get it).
--$250,000 income, married filing jointly: 10% up to $16,500 ($1,650) plus 15% between $16,500 and $68,000 ($7,725) plus 25% between $68,000 and
$137,300 ($17,325) plus 28% between $137,300 and $209,500 ($20,216) plus 33% between $209,500 and $250,000 ($13,365) for a total of $60,281. This is 24% of the $250,000.
--The average State and Local tax burden in for all the states is 9.7%. There is surprisingly little range between the most and least taxing of states.
Add these taxes up: 15.3% FICA/Medicare, 24% Federal Income Tax, and 9.7% average State tax burden: 49%. My family pays more because we had the misfortune to inherit my Dad's house, which doubled our property tax burden in a state with some of the highest property taxes in the Country.
"I find this to be indicative of these meandering pity parties thrown by teabaggers and their fellow travelers. A smorgasboard of complaints about government sprinkled in with a shot at "Big Corporations" without a single acknowledgment of the fact that this is what happens in capitalist states, but god forgive them if they ever questioned the underlying economic model."
If you wish to dismiss citizens dissatisfied with the failures of government, and its obscene costs, feel free. Anyone who believes in God-Government will do so. I suggest you put me on your ignore list, since you have no interest in learning from my experiences.
In actuality I do question the underlying economic model; I find modern economists no more scientific than Roman Catholic Priests and don't see any stability, ever, in the current mixture of Big Government and Big Business that is a disaster for the Middle Class. For that reason I advocate dismantling the half of the problem that I theoretically have a vote in: Government. Big Business can only be battled by a healthy economy that encourages Small Business--which is the exact opposite of what we have today.
If you think the economy and Government today is healthy and viable, you might want to present an argument about how things are good, perhaps some statistics or analyses, rather than simply calling names and labeling a post about my experiences a "meandering pity party."
Apparently you missed where I said specifics and not broad generalizations.
Typical liberal BS, by the way: any opposition to your savior, Obama, is based solely on his skin color and not his crappy policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
