Yeah but it's a fake uniting to me. So check this out, when a new government is formed the controlling party writes a speech for the queen and she reads it and yippie new government. Nobody asks her if she understood what she said or if she believes it, rightly because it's utterly fake. This is along the same lines as Ronald Reagan. He grew up reading what rich guys would tell him to say, so he did the same thing as president. He was credited with this big surge of the Republican party, everyone all ecstatic about the whole thing but after his presidency no reporter bothered to go ask him about anything. No one interviewed him about this stuff because it was known that he doesn't know anything about it, he's not in charge.

It's basically the same with Bush, president for 8 years, big republican gains under his presidency, world shaking effects. You have to struggle to find an interview with him, or something he's written about that means anything. So we've turned our presidency into a sort of Royalty, and that's why it's completely pathetic.

Perhaps if your beloved so called "job creators" paid people a living wage rather than horde more and more of their profits for themselves there wouldn't be a war on poverty. They can't even pay their employees a rate that keeps up with inflation. Worker compensation goes up 5.7% since 1978, while CEO pay 726.7%. You right wing folks cry foul if the government taxes the rich about "spreading the wealth" but don't care that the rich are stealing the money earned by the hard work of the working class and keeping it at the top. Want to stop spending so much of your tax dollars helping the poor? How about your heroes paying everyone a living wage? How about they start hiring people again rather than fire people so they can have a jet? When the job creators start doing that then we can complain about how much tax money goes to helping the siftless who refuse to work and "want a handout". When some rich guy, <cough>Romney</cough> making $20 Million a year off investments actually spends $15 to $19 Million of that making businesses that just run off those investments rather than just holding it for their own greed, then we talk about a war on poverty... if I made that kind of money I wouldn't need even $1 Million a year, I'd stop around $150k (+/- cost of living adjustments from this area to whatever area I was in) and the rest I'd put into making stores or something, paying people living wages... $20 million a year would pay a lot of people a living wage.

And to be clear, I believe in the right to start your own business, and to be compensated for the risk, but when over half of your workers need food stamps, and you are making $18.7 Million a year, most of that in very low tax capital gains, then I start having issues. Nobody needs that kind of money, nobody. I'm not saying that everyone should cut off at the $150k (+/- cost of living for a given area) that I'd stop at, but after $250-$500 or so it starts to get bad if they aren't paying everyone under them a living wage (and if they are all being paid a living wage, then start hiring more people rather than keeping minimum staffing).

But no, they hold it for themselves, they fire thousands of people and keep the rest an minimum wages for over 3 years so they can have and keep their jet, their incomes greatly increase year to year compared to the rate of inflation while the few people they keep aren't keeping pace, and you people on the right complain about the poor rather than looking at the people responsible. You complain about how the poor are all just lazy... stop your job, work with the poor, take a job in retail working minimum wage for 10 to 20 years of your life. Most of those people want better jobs, they don't want a hand out, they want something better for themselves and their kids. Most of the poor want out, not by a handout, they want good jobs, but the "job creators" care only about increasing their pockets rather than helping their employees. Every person I know who gets government assistance (and that is a very large percentage of the people I know) would love to make a living wage and be off government assistance, a great many of them are embarrassed to be on the government roles and take it only because the only other choice would be take their kids and live on the streets, while the business owner or CEO hired by the company they work for jets around from mansion to mansion.

I have to disagree a bit. Do you need to do hard work? Yes, but there are plenty of hard working people who struggle and never become financially successful. They may obtain some personal satisfaction, but the "rich people are rich because they work hard, and poor people are poor because they are lazy" mentality that is so popular in the US is flat out wrong. Not everyone working at your local restaurant, retailer or whatever is there because they are lazy, sometimes people get stuck in a rut and hard work alone won't get you out of it.

There is a great deal of talent and luck involved as well. Had Carnegie not worked for Scott, he very well may have never became the rich guy he became. He lucked out working for someone who mentored him and gave him a huge boost. Had Carnegie never gotten to where he did, then perhaps Frisk would have just been a hooligan and the Johnstown Flood never would have happened... had Carnegie been more himself, he probably never would have hired Frisk, which at least would probably have stopped the disaster of the Homestead Strike (of course then he may have never became the philanthropist he became). There were also plenty of hard working people in the early days of computers, there was a ton of luck involved for Apple and Micro-soft to break out and become what they would eventually become. In those two cases, it helped that Gates and Jobs were asshats in their early days, which gets back to being yourself. But for each Gates/Jobs there were many more equally hard working people who never became successful and faded back to obscurity. It's not like Romney became rich through hard work, he came from money and Bain Capital is named for Bill Bain who appointed Romney CEO... not to discount Romney's work there, or his work at school proving himself, but how likely would it be that he would have been CEO had he come from a poor family and didn't get to get to go to such a high end university? Likely no.

That all isn't to say hard work doesn't help, it is a key, but hard work alone counts for squat.

>> ^chilaxe:

Basically he's saying "Be yourself and somehow you'll become successful or something if you're lucky."
Better advice: "Hard work and perseverance beats talent and luck, and successful careers can be reduced down to an algorithm."

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ah yes, Roosevelt, the rich guy posing as a common man, sworn enemy of individual rights, private property and economic liberty, whose policies prolonged the Depression, enormously increased debt, compromised the Supreme Court and whose ass was only saved by the US entering World War II.


During World War 2 the country became increasingly fascist...the good old days right?

Ah yes, Roosevelt, the rich guy posing as a common man, sworn enemy of individual rights, private property and economic liberty, whose policies prolonged the Depression, enormously increased debt, compromised the Supreme Court and whose ass was only saved by the US entering World War II.

>> ^bobknight33:

To say that Romney is a bitch of the rich is truly one sided. How can you not also notice that Obama is a rich guy steeply in bed with wall street. Obama is the the Corporate whore. >> ^Sagemind:
On the Flip side, Obama didn't come out with his fists up, which is not his style by the way. But there is a piece of us that just wants him to take a strip out of Romney and expose him for the stuck-up wealthy, son-of-a-bitch, paid-off-by-the-corporations-lackey that he is!



Again absolutely correct. What this is is a PR spectacle. People were literally talking about this in the context of Football teams. It's an absolute joke, they said nothing, we learned nothing, one smiled more and seemed happier. How can this be our democracy?!

I think that's because yeah Obama makes us look like meat and potatoes but Romney makes Obama look like meat and potatoes.
>> ^bobknight33:

To say that Romney is a bitch of the rich is truly one sided. How can you not also notice that Obama is a rich guy steeply in bed with wall street. Obama is the the Corporate whore. >> ^Sagemind:
On the Flip side, Obama didn't come out with his fists up, which is not his style by the way. But there is a piece of us that just wants him to take a strip out of Romney and expose him for the stuck-up wealthy, son-of-a-bitch, paid-off-by-the-corporations-lackey that he is!

To say that Romney is a bitch of the rich is truly one sided. How can you not also notice that Obama is a rich guy steeply in bed with wall street. Obama is the the Corporate whore. >> ^Sagemind:

On the Flip side, Obama didn't come out with his fists up, which is not his style by the way. But there is a piece of us that just wants him to take a strip out of Romney and expose him for the stuck-up wealthy, son-of-a-bitch, paid-off-by-the-corporations-lackey that he is!

Obama wasn't exactly born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He earned his money through writing. It's exactly because his perspective connected with so many people that he earned both his money and the office he holds.

It's easy to gripe about this policy or that, but he ain't exactly old money. When you look at wealth it's important to look at how the money was earned. Presumably anyone qualified to be president has already demonstrated their faculties. In so doing, they've likely earned a comfortable living.
>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^bmacs27:
Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:
does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


of course not. nor is it responsible to make a hoarder a president, but that is what we are often left with.
consider whether it is responsible to elect a person who has absolutely no perspective on the everyday struggles of the average person, who only knows life by the silver spoon, or has so long been entrenched in washington and politics that greed, back door deals, and buying influence is all that registers in their reality.
is that a good idea?
I think not.

>> ^bmacs27:

Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:
does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.



of course not. nor is it responsible to make a hoarder a president, but that is what we are often left with.

consider whether it is responsible to elect a person who has absolutely no perspective on the everyday struggles of the average person, who only knows life by the silver spoon, or has so long been entrenched in washington and politics that greed, back door deals, and buying influence is all that registers in their reality.
is that a good idea?
I think not.

Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.

>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


Of course not. The entire way we conduct our election process is undemocratic. We should take a page from Columbia and actually elect someone from out own ranks.

>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


We prefer the dragged-out version maintaining mineral rights, gun ownership, and polygamy.

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^jjw001:
so what happens when more than 1 super rich guy wants to come/leave around the same time?

They're just gonna have to request another bailout to build that second lift. Why should these people have to wait just so some poor assholes can keep their houses?
IT'S IN SINGAPORE!