Is the Bern not typical of most wealth haters?

[9aces]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

Sure people hate the wealthy. Many on the left do. It's why they are attacked with such vitriol here and other places.

Wealth disparity? Well if there is this wealth disparity, then somebody or some people have to be in charge, wouldn't you agree? And if so, who are these people?

again, no. it has to do with policies that are exacerbating the disparities which while they existed, did not exist to the degree they do now.

but keep making up things and then argue against the things you're making up.

What policies? There is no policy that could make the gap any larger or smaller or even start the gap in the first place. Government doesn't decide on how much we should make outside messing around with minimum wages.

Questions to every business owner on here, or those who work for themselves--------->

1. When starting out on this, your current successful endeavor, how many hours did you put in per week (average) the 1st 2 years?

2. How much income did you get on average per week from your endeavor, the 1st 2 years?

3. How many times (from memory) did you think you might not make it in the 1st 2 years, and consider all the work you had done may not have let you succeed?

4. If you have hired an employee,(s) how many of them did you go through before you found 1 worth keeping?

5. What was the actual cost to YOU to hire an employee.............not their direct compensation mind you............but their compensation PLUS what it cost you in government interference to have you employ them?

Now, I want to go back to question 1 if I may, and make this statement.----->

If it takes this many hours (the hours our posters put in averaged out) then you can theoretically deduct 20% from that number, and that would be compensation for an employee. How do we come to that number? Easy! Most employers will NOT hire an employee unless they get a profit BEFORE taxes from said employees labor, of between 13 and 19%.

Now look at question 2! The owner of that business probably did NOT even get an employees compensation for at least 2 years, lol. And I betcha, most people would say it was longer than that.

Point of this exercise is------------> It takes a special kind of person to do this, never knowing if they will EVER make a ton of money, put their families lives on hold, put their wealth and sweat equity into something that may, or may not succeed, hire people who do not have the intestinal fortitude to do it themselves giving them gainful employment, and the answer from the left when all of it finally pays off is (and the failure rate is much higher than the success rate, which means your spouse is probably going to divorce you)...........to screw them!

In the new America, some how, that is fair! Go figure.

1 - 80 to 100 wasn't uncommon.

2 - Not a lot, 30-40k a year but it was structured around jobs, so there wasn't a weekly paycheck. But that went a lot farther in those days.

3 - Pretty much daily. Borrowed money on occasion to pay bills till the job paid off. Then happened way too often through the years, but somehow made it work.

4 - Not that many, I'm picky so I tend to go through fewer losers in the hiring process.

5 - Damn, that's a tough one. Figure 20-25% of their salary on top of what I paid them in salary and bonuses. I'm a big believer in completion bonuses, but the taxes on them are ruinous to everybody.

Good points. Good thing my wife had a great job with stability. Couldn't have done it without her.

Yes it's hard, dunno if I could have done it now, with the regulatory environment so much more toxic to employers. I'd probably have tried though, I'm pretty darn stubborn.

 

[9aces]

Many on the left ARE wealthy.

You should do your simple trollposting on a message board where people haven't already seen this sort of nonsense 7 years ago.

How is this trolling?

The truth hurts, doesn't it? The fact that your number two (and number one in some places) contender never invested a dime of his money and is the poorest of Congress really upsets you people. The fact that this loser never earned a steady paycheck until he was well into his middle-age.

He is very typical of wealth haters. Jealous of the actions others have taken that he didn't have the guts to take himself.

It is kind of funny what the Democrats have to vote for.

One extreme, an honest guy who isn't rich because he isn't for sale, but completely out to lunch on what creating a job is.

The other, an incredibly corrupt woman who has gotten incredibly wealthy selling influence....and doesn't have a clue what creating a job is like.

At least they have not knowing how to create jobs in common.

to be fair, you wouldn't know what making a job is if it bit you.

The hundreds of buildings I've designed and built, and thousands of people both I, and the people who needed them built will call you a fool. But I'm sure you get that a lot.

Assuming I believed you, how many of those were gubmint contracts? And how many mortgages were obtained when bush crashed the economy?

And no I don't. Typically only from low IQ low information rightwingnuts.

I only did one project for the government. Did one in Africa, swore never to do another it was such a headache. Had to buy a copier to send copies to the state department. 6 copies of EVERY drawing, every time there was a change on ANY drawing. 183 drawings x 6, I make a change, they make a change, anybody makes a change. Take about 1 min per copy, that's 18 hours I had to pay someone to do nothing but stand at a copier and make copies. They got good at tearing off a 24" piece off the roll though. It's a lot cheaper to buy paper by the roll than the sheet.

I don't even know how many thousand copies got made that were an absolute waste of paper. But that's our government for you, great at wasting money. I heard 2 years after we completed it the place had been completely looted and trashed. 6 million down a rat hole.

Bush didn't crash the economy. Congress and Wall Street built that bubble over a lot of years, and more than one president had a hand in it. Could as easily have happened on Obama's watch...and might yet, it's pretty fragile now still.

As for mortgages....none. Commercial buildings built overseas. I'm one of those evil people who took materials made here....and shipped them overseas. Of course I had an office in St. Croix for the money coming back. I'm evil....not stupid.

 

[9aces]

I think he's more concerned with giving unestablished people a chance.

Yes he is, and at what cost, the established people?

The thing about Bernie, he's absolutely sincere in what he believes. The problem there is as you said, he has no context to view those who do produce wealth, products and jobs because simply put he's never done it.

He believes in the theory of what he believes, because he doesn't understand that in practice, it's never worked, because it can't in the US. It wouldn't be long at all until he began to look at nationalizing businesses, in order to control them to try and achieve the ends he believes are worth any cost.

Correct, he is absolutely sincere about what he believes, just like the wealth haters on TV, radio and here on USMB. They are all sincere.

But the question I pose is where does their sincerity come from? It comes from failure on their own part, the belief that money just rained down on certain people and not others--even if they never tried.

Either that, or their desire to wield power over others. Liberals would absolutely LOVE to enslave the producers to work for them.

The conservatives offshored the producers.

Actually son...it was both. Give someone a lot of reasons to leave....they will.

 

[rdean]

I think he's more concerned with giving unestablished people a chance.

Yes he is, and at what cost, the established people?

Funny how a little help goes a long way. But your kind wouldn't understand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think he's more concerned with giving unestablished people a chance.

Yes he is, and at what cost, the established people?

Funny how a little help goes a long way. But your kind wouldn't understand.

No, it's your kind that doesn't understand.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, yet have little to show for it.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for the day, and he will be back at your door looking for more fish tomorrow.

 

[9aces]

I think he's more concerned with giving unestablished people a chance.

Yes he is, and at what cost, the established people?

Funny how a little help goes a long way. But your kind wouldn't understand.

No, it's your kind that doesn't understand.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, yet have little to show for it.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for the day, and he will be back at your door looking for more fish tomorrow.

We have something to show for it.

More poverty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think he's more concerned with giving unestablished people a chance.

Yes he is, and at what cost, the established people?

Funny how a little help goes a long way. But your kind wouldn't understand.

No, it's your kind that doesn't understand.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, yet have little to show for it.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for the day, and he will be back at your door looking for more fish tomorrow.

We have something to show for it.

More poverty.

The solution to poverty is pretty simple.

What causes poverty? Having no money.
What is the solution to poverty? Getting money.
How does one get money? Get a job and work hard.

Of course with earning money, one has to be responsible enough to handle it. Don't have any children until you are financially stable enough to support those kids. Don't spend money carelessly. You don't need the most premium package on your cell phone or on your cable television. Don't buy any pets. Feed yourself before you feed some dumb animal.

What I would really like to know from liberals is how is this simple solution not being exercised by a large group of our citizens? The answer of course is that a large group of our citizens are lazy, irresponsible, or both.

 

[Dovahkiin]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

Sure people hate the wealthy. Many on the left do. It's why they are attacked with such vitriol here and other places.

Wealth disparity? Well if there is this wealth disparity, then somebody or some people have to be in charge, wouldn't you agree? And if so, who are these people?

More likely the wealthy hate the poor. Remember Mitt Romney, his wife and comments about "you people". Then there was the tape where he said he wouldn't represent half the country.

Because half of the workers in this country pay no income tax.

And that's a problem? The government doesn't even need federal taxes to spend. Tax policy should be focused on reducing aggregate demand when needed, controlling inflation, and creating a demand for dollars.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I think he's more concerned with giving unestablished people a chance.

Yes he is, and at what cost, the established people?

Funny how a little help goes a long way. But your kind wouldn't understand.

No, it's your kind that doesn't understand.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, yet have little to show for it.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for the day, and he will be back at your door looking for more fish tomorrow.

We have something to show for it.

More poverty.

The solution to poverty is pretty simple.

What causes poverty? Having no money.
What is the solution to poverty? Getting money.
How does one get money? Get a job and work hard.

Of course with earning money, one has to be responsible enough to handle it. Don't have any children until you are financially stable enough to support those kids. Don't spend money carelessly. You don't need the most premium package on your cell phone or on your cable television. Don't buy any pets. Feed yourself before you feed some dumb animal.

What I would really like to know from liberals is how is this simple solution not being exercised by a large group of our citizens? The answer of course is that a large group of our citizens are lazy, irresponsible, or both.

I agree, poverty is caused by a lack of dollars.
Your solution makes sense.
Yes, I agree, people can get out of poverty by earning dollars at a job.
But here's the problem:
The government believes, I shit you not, that we can not drop below a certain unemployment rate or accelerated inflation will occur. This is known as NAIRU, and it's 100% false, but it's affected us for decades. We need a real solution to help the millions of workers stuck in part time jobs, the people with a criminal record who can't get hired, the people who have given up, the millions stuck in low wage jobs without proper training. We need a job guarantee.

 

[9aces]

Yes he is, and at what cost, the established people?

Funny how a little help goes a long way. But your kind wouldn't understand.

No, it's your kind that doesn't understand.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, yet have little to show for it.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for the day, and he will be back at your door looking for more fish tomorrow.

We have something to show for it.

More poverty.

The solution to poverty is pretty simple.

What causes poverty? Having no money.
What is the solution to poverty? Getting money.
How does one get money? Get a job and work hard.

Of course with earning money, one has to be responsible enough to handle it. Don't have any children until you are financially stable enough to support those kids. Don't spend money carelessly. You don't need the most premium package on your cell phone or on your cable television. Don't buy any pets. Feed yourself before you feed some dumb animal.

What I would really like to know from liberals is how is this simple solution not being exercised by a large group of our citizens? The answer of course is that a large group of our citizens are lazy, irresponsible, or both.

I agree, poverty is caused by a lack of dollars.
Your solution makes sense.
Yes, I agree, people can get out of poverty by earning dollars at a job.
But here's the problem:
The government believes, I shit you not, that we can not drop below a certain unemployment rate or accelerated inflation will occur. This is known as NAIRU, and it's 100% false, but it's affected us for decades. We need a real solution to help the millions of workers stuck in part time jobs, the people with a criminal record who can't get hired, the people who have given up, the millions stuck in low wage jobs without proper training. We need a job guarantee.

A job guarantee is not only impossible. It's insanity to even contemplate trying to do it.

 

[initforme]

Well when you get rid of unions, talk about how social security is a bad thing, demonize medicare and medicaid, the things hard working folk depend on to survive as they age, what do you expect them to do? All this lazy worker crap is empty rhetoric. Workers are waking up to the fact that the wealthy are using their money to influence politicians to see it the way of the wealthy. It bothers some wealthy folk that hard working people who are barely scraping by are able to vote. Bernie is tapping into this and his popularity is approaching numbers nobody ever dreamed. Class warfare does have a place in politics and rightfully so.

 

[rdean]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

Sure people hate the wealthy. Many on the left do. It's why they are attacked with such vitriol here and other places.

Wealth disparity? Well if there is this wealth disparity, then somebody or some people have to be in charge, wouldn't you agree? And if so, who are these people?

More likely the wealthy hate the poor. Remember Mitt Romney, his wife and comments about "you people". Then there was the tape where he said he wouldn't represent half the country.

Because half of the workers in this country pay no income tax.

Explains why we need a raise in the minimum wage. How many people of Romney's wealth pay zero taxes. Why do you think he only showed one fixed up tax return?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

Sure people hate the wealthy. Many on the left do. It's why they are attacked with such vitriol here and other places.

Wealth disparity? Well if there is this wealth disparity, then somebody or some people have to be in charge, wouldn't you agree? And if so, who are these people?

More likely the wealthy hate the poor. Remember Mitt Romney, his wife and comments about "you people". Then there was the tape where he said he wouldn't represent half the country.

Because half of the workers in this country pay no income tax.

Explains why we need a raise in the minimum wage. How many people of Romney's wealth pay zero taxes. Why do you think he only showed one fixed up tax return?

It's all he had to show just like any other contender. But now that you bring it up, it really exposes Harry Weed's lie that he had a friend who knew Romney paid no taxes at all. You know how those liberals lie. Harry probably doesn't have any friends.

Now please explain how raising minimum wages would bring in more income tax payers. What do you want to raise the wage to, $20.00 an hour?

And how about this suggestion: everybody pay something towards income tax regardless of how much you make?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well when you get rid of unions, talk about how social security is a bad thing, demonize medicare and medicaid, the things hard working folk depend on to survive as they age, what do you expect them to do? All this lazy worker crap is empty rhetoric. Workers are waking up to the fact that the wealthy are using their money to influence politicians to see it the way of the wealthy. It bothers some wealthy folk that hard working people who are barely scraping by are able to vote. Bernie is tapping into this and his popularity is approaching numbers nobody ever dreamed. Class warfare does have a place in politics and rightfully so.

If course it bothers us that they vote. If we were able to have a vote here, and we voted that you give us each $1,000 because you have more money than the rest of us, wouldn't that bother you?

Of course it should bother some when people are able to vote money out of their pockets. Many of us know that feeling.

 

[initforme]

Well then you are advocating for a plutocracy...which is where we are headed quite frankly. All the wealth in the hands of a few. I'm not a sanders supporter. I favor trump. But I can see what is happening. Workers are taking it on the chin. The wealthy have never had it so good and nobody should say a word. I see now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes he is, and at what cost, the established people?

Funny how a little help goes a long way. But your kind wouldn't understand.

No, it's your kind that doesn't understand.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, yet have little to show for it.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for the day, and he will be back at your door looking for more fish tomorrow.

We have something to show for it.

More poverty.

The solution to poverty is pretty simple.

What causes poverty? Having no money.
What is the solution to poverty? Getting money.
How does one get money? Get a job and work hard.

Of course with earning money, one has to be responsible enough to handle it. Don't have any children until you are financially stable enough to support those kids. Don't spend money carelessly. You don't need the most premium package on your cell phone or on your cable television. Don't buy any pets. Feed yourself before you feed some dumb animal.

What I would really like to know from liberals is how is this simple solution not being exercised by a large group of our citizens? The answer of course is that a large group of our citizens are lazy, irresponsible, or both.

I agree, poverty is caused by a lack of dollars.
Your solution makes sense.
Yes, I agree, people can get out of poverty by earning dollars at a job.
But here's the problem:
The government believes, I shit you not, that we can not drop below a certain unemployment rate or accelerated inflation will occur. This is known as NAIRU, and it's 100% false, but it's affected us for decades. We need a real solution to help the millions of workers stuck in part time jobs, the people with a criminal record who can't get hired, the people who have given up, the millions stuck in low wage jobs without proper training. We need a job guarantee.

Okay, consider it done. If you want proper training, find a school that will give you that training and sign up for courses.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.

Rush Limbaugh often points out, that if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that industry can't find workers for. Take my profession for example: I'm a truck driver, and this year alone, it's reported that we will need 60,000 new drivers that employers can't find. It's so to the point they are hiring foreigners to come here and do the jobs Americans won't do.

Okay, you can't just jump into a tractor-trailer with no training and start driving. You need training, you need experience, you need to get your CDL license. Well, some companies will not only train and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn.

And as you can imagine, I spend my day in many industrial sites. Those sites are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They too can't find people to work because if you go back there a few months later, those signs are still posted.

So what is the solution? Stop paying people not to work. If you're hungry enough, you'll find a way to earn money, believe me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well then you are advocating for a plutocracy...which is where we are headed quite frankly. All the wealth in the hands of a few. I'm not a sanders supporter. I favor trump. But I can see what is happening. Workers are taking it on the chin. The wealthy have never had it so good and nobody should say a word. I see now.

We as a society don't nominate people to be wealthy or people to be poor. That's entirely on the individuals and their choices.

So what's your solution, have government take more money from the wealthy? Okay, then tell me how that would help me. All it would make is the government more wealthy--not the workers.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Funny how a little help goes a long way. But your kind wouldn't understand.

No, it's your kind that doesn't understand.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, yet have little to show for it.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for the day, and he will be back at your door looking for more fish tomorrow.

We have something to show for it.

More poverty.

The solution to poverty is pretty simple.

What causes poverty? Having no money.
What is the solution to poverty? Getting money.
How does one get money? Get a job and work hard.

Of course with earning money, one has to be responsible enough to handle it. Don't have any children until you are financially stable enough to support those kids. Don't spend money carelessly. You don't need the most premium package on your cell phone or on your cable television. Don't buy any pets. Feed yourself before you feed some dumb animal.

What I would really like to know from liberals is how is this simple solution not being exercised by a large group of our citizens? The answer of course is that a large group of our citizens are lazy, irresponsible, or both.

I agree, poverty is caused by a lack of dollars.
Your solution makes sense.
Yes, I agree, people can get out of poverty by earning dollars at a job.
But here's the problem:
The government believes, I shit you not, that we can not drop below a certain unemployment rate or accelerated inflation will occur. This is known as NAIRU, and it's 100% false, but it's affected us for decades. We need a real solution to help the millions of workers stuck in part time jobs, the people with a criminal record who can't get hired, the people who have given up, the millions stuck in low wage jobs without proper training. We need a job guarantee.

Okay, consider it done. If you want proper training, find a school that will give you that training and sign up for courses.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.

Rush Limbaugh often points out, that if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that industry can't find workers for. Take my profession for example: I'm a truck driver, and this year alone, it's reported that we will need 60,000 new drivers that employers can't find. It's so to the point they are hiring foreigners to come here and do the jobs Americans won't do.

Okay, you can't just jump into a tractor-trailer with no training and start driving. You need training, you need experience, you need to get your CDL license. Well, some companies will not only train and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn.

And as you can imagine, I spend my day in many industrial sites. Those sites are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They too can't find people to work because if you go back there a few months later, those signs are still posted.

So what is the solution? Stop paying people not to work. If you're hungry enough, you'll find a way to earn money, believe me.

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I think he's more concerned with giving unestablished people a chance.

I'm all for giving unestablished people a chance.

I would expect them to at least get out of bed and make a contribution to their success.