People who make America an Awesome Country

[mudwhistle]

For anyone who thinks the private sector is just a bunch of evil moneygrabbers who don't care about anyone but themselves (that'll be many whining liberals), here is a great example of the kind of people run businesses in this country. He could have sold it and made even more money but he didn't. He gave it away - to the 209 people who worked for him.

What a totally cool guy. These are the people who can turn America around, not the idiots in Washington.


MILWAUKIE – Scores of employees gathered to help Bob Moore celebrate his 81st birthday this week at the company that bears his name, Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods.

Moore, whose mutual loves of healthy eating and old-world technologies spawned an internationally distributed line of products, responded with a gift of his own -- the whole company. The Employee Stock Ownership Plan Moore unveiled means that his 209 employees now own the place and its 400 offerings of stone-ground flours, cereals and bread mixes.

"This is Bob taking care of us," said Lori Sobelson, who helps run the business' retail operation. "He expects a lot out of us, but really gives us the world in return." Moore declined to say how much he thinks the company is worth. In 2004, however, one business publication estimated that year's revenues at more than $24 million. A company news release issued this week stated that Bob's Red Mill has chalked up an annual growth rate of between 20 percent to 30 percent every year since.


Founder of Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods transfers business to employees | Clackamas County News - OregonLive.com

Great story thanks. You are correct small privately held companies will be the ones that turn this country back to it's roots.

Now all we have to do is get rid of the folks in Washington standing in their way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have an honest question for the conservatives here; Where are we on isolationism? How do you guys feel about bringing jobs back, either through tarriffs on imports or on making laws to prohibit outsourcing, or any other means?

Isolationism would encourage same by other nations.

Our nation should, instead, encourage and incentivize individuals entering fields that keep the USA in the lead, globally.

First and foremost is education. All efforts and initiatives aimed at 'equity' or 'social justice' should be shelved in the interests of achievement and performance. BTW, it is this area that President Obama is preforming best, far surpassing any other foreign or domestic policies.

Am I reading too much into your post, or are you unaware that the United States of America is the number one exporter in the world, far outstripping number two?

1. The US is the 3rd largest exporter of goods (8.3%) , after Germany ( 9.5) and China (8.7)
2. The US is the largest exporter of services (13.9 %) followed by UK (8.3) and Germany ( 6.6)
3. Taken as a total of goods and services, the US is more than twice as prolific as the next nearest nation.
http://ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/US_Trade_Overview.pdf


And, of course, welcome to the board.

 

[blu]

Sounds like "socialism".

wow

 

[xotoxi]

Bob's Red Mill steel cut oats...the only oatmeal that I eat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For anyone who thinks the private sector is just a bunch of evil moneygrabbers who don't care about anyone but themselves (that'll be many whining liberals), here is a great example of the kind of people run businesses in this country.

You don't speak for me CG, I happen to be a business owner in the private sector. The man you describe here is a shining example of what capitalism should be.

The problem is those who have already fulfilled every need that money can buy, but continue accumulating wealth through exploitation (the Waltons being public enemy #1). When you have billions of dollars, I'm not sure what you do with another $100 Million. It's a sickness, wealth for the sake of wealth, and in the last 30 years it has delivered sickening body blows to the now barely existent middle class.

Although this WSJ article is from 2007, clearly your contention that "last 30 years it has delivered sickening body blows to the now barely existent middle class." is hyperbolic at best.

"The report also rebuts the claim, fashionable in some precincts on CNN, that the middle class is losing ground. The median family with children saw an 18% rise in earnings from the early 1990s through 2005. That's $8,500 more purchasing power after inflation. The wealthiest fifth made a 55% gain in earnings, but the key point is that every class saw significant gains in income.
There's a lot of income mobility in America, so comparing poor families today with the poor families of 10 years ago can be misleading because they're not the same families. Every year hundreds of thousands of new immigrants and the young enter the workforce at "poor" income levels. But the CBO study found that, with the exception of chronically poor families who have no breadwinner, low-income job holders are climbing the income ladder.
When CBO examined surveys of the same poor families over a two year period, 2001-2003, it found that "the average income for those households increased by nearly 45%." That's especially impressive considering that those were two of the weakest years for economic growth across the 15 years of the larger study."

The Poor Get Richer - WSJ.com

 

[RodISHI]

I have an honest question for the conservatives here; Where are we on isolationism? How do you guys feel about bringing jobs back, either through tarriffs on imports or on making laws to prohibit outsourcing, or any other means?

Isolationism would encourage same by other nations.

Our nation should, instead, encourage and incentivize individuals entering fields that keep the USA in the lead, globally.

First and foremost is education. All efforts and initiatives aimed at 'equity' or 'social justice' should be shelved in the interests of achievement and performance. BTW, it is this area that President Obama is preforming best, far surpassing any other foreign or domestic policies.
Am I reading too much into your post, or are you unaware that the United States of America is the number one exporter in the world, far outstripping number two?

1. The US is the 3rd largest exporter of goods (8.3%) , after Germany ( 9.5) and China (8.7)
2. The US is the largest exporter of services (13.9 %) followed by UK (8.3) and Germany ( 6.6)
3. Taken as a total of goods and services, the US is more than twice as prolific as the next nearest nation.
http://ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/US_Trade_Overview.pdf


And, of course, welcome to the board.

PC, can you expound on that part which is bolded?

 

[rightwinger]

For anyone who thinks the private sector is just a bunch of evil moneygrabbers who don't care about anyone but themselves (that'll be many whining liberals), here is a great example of the kind of people run businesses in this country. He could have sold it and made even more money but he didn't. He gave it away - to the 209 people who worked for him.

What a totally cool guy. These are the people who can turn America around, not the idiots in Washington.


MILWAUKIE – Scores of employees gathered to help Bob Moore celebrate his 81st birthday this week at the company that bears his name, Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods.

Moore, whose mutual loves of healthy eating and old-world technologies spawned an internationally distributed line of products, responded with a gift of his own -- the whole company. The Employee Stock Ownership Plan Moore unveiled means that his 209 employees now own the place and its 400 offerings of stone-ground flours, cereals and bread mixes.

"This is Bob taking care of us," said Lori Sobelson, who helps run the business' retail operation. "He expects a lot out of us, but really gives us the world in return." Moore declined to say how much he thinks the company is worth. In 2004, however, one business publication estimated that year's revenues at more than $24 million. A company news release issued this week stated that Bob's Red Mill has chalked up an annual growth rate of between 20 percent to 30 percent every year since.


Founder of Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods transfers business to employees | Clackamas County News - OregonLive.com

Thats a good example of a family owned and operated business. The bad reputation for private business comes once those family owned and operated businessess sell out and are run by the financial geniuses and the lawyers.
They will sell their employees out in a heartbeat (if they actually had a heart)

 

[California Girl]

For anyone who thinks the private sector is just a bunch of evil moneygrabbers who don't care about anyone but themselves (that'll be many whining liberals), here is a great example of the kind of people run businesses in this country. He could have sold it and made even more money but he didn't. He gave it away - to the 209 people who worked for him.

What a totally cool guy. These are the people who can turn America around, not the idiots in Washington.


MILWAUKIE – Scores of employees gathered to help Bob Moore celebrate his 81st birthday this week at the company that bears his name, Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods.

Moore, whose mutual loves of healthy eating and old-world technologies spawned an internationally distributed line of products, responded with a gift of his own -- the whole company. The Employee Stock Ownership Plan Moore unveiled means that his 209 employees now own the place and its 400 offerings of stone-ground flours, cereals and bread mixes.

"This is Bob taking care of us," said Lori Sobelson, who helps run the business' retail operation. "He expects a lot out of us, but really gives us the world in return." Moore declined to say how much he thinks the company is worth. In 2004, however, one business publication estimated that year's revenues at more than $24 million. A company news release issued this week stated that Bob's Red Mill has chalked up an annual growth rate of between 20 percent to 30 percent every year since.


Founder of Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods transfers business to employees | Clackamas County News - OregonLive.com

Thats a good example of a family owned and operated business. The bad reputation for private business comes once those family owned and operatede businessess sell out and are run by the financial geniuses and the lawyers.
They will sell their employees out in a heartbeat (if they actually had a heart)

Selling your business for a profit does not actually make you a bad or heartless person. People are allowed to do with their business as THEY CHOOSE to do. I happen to admire this guy for giving his to his employees. His family are well taken care of and obviously have no need of a hugely profitable business so he gave it away. I respect and admire that - because it was his choice. I certainly would not have criticised him for choosing to sell it. Nor would I judge him as for it. It is the obsession of the left to think ill of people who are successful.

 

[Bfgrn]

For anyone who thinks the private sector is just a bunch of evil moneygrabbers who don't care about anyone but themselves (that'll be many whining liberals), here is a great example of the kind of people run businesses in this country.

You don't speak for me CG, I happen to be a business owner in the private sector. The man you describe here is a shining example of what capitalism should be.

The problem is those who have already fulfilled every need that money can buy, but continue accumulating wealth through exploitation (the Waltons being public enemy #1). When you have billions of dollars, I'm not sure what you do with another $100 Million. It's a sickness, wealth for the sake of wealth, and in the last 30 years it has delivered sickening body blows to the now barely existent middle class.

I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself - unlike some. Fact is, it is our right to work to become wealthy, and to do with our wealth as we see fit. If I want to be a wealth person and succeed, it is my business how much money I earn and what I do with it. It is not anyone else's right to say I have too much and take it from me.

The reason that the middle class is struggling is from too much government, not the wealth of others.

No, the reason the middle class is beyond struggling and becoming extinct is because of too much government that represents only the interests of the wealthy. They are able to buy socialism for themselves and stick the middle class and the poor with 'free markets'.

America today mirrors the sad history of Russia...a failed revolution. We are now burdened with the horrible effects of the failed Reagan revolution. Trickle down was really trickle UP, and Reagan, the great socialist, did more to redistribute wealth than ANY President. All the lessons learned during the Great Depression were suddenly null & void. Reagan and his right wing henchmen sicced the wealthy on the poor and middle class, easy picking when people are basically honest and conscientious and the arbitrators are NOT.

Our last great President defined the role of Chief Executive best:

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Reagan and Bush Jr are the antithesis of Kennedy's vision.

 

[RodISHI]

For anyone who thinks the private sector is just a bunch of evil moneygrabbers who don't care about anyone but themselves (that'll be many whining liberals), here is a great example of the kind of people run businesses in this country. He could have sold it and made even more money but he didn't. He gave it away - to the 209 people who worked for him.

What a totally cool guy. These are the people who can turn America around, not the idiots in Washington.


MILWAUKIE – Scores of employees gathered to help Bob Moore celebrate his 81st birthday this week at the company that bears his name, Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods.

Moore, whose mutual loves of healthy eating and old-world technologies spawned an internationally distributed line of products, responded with a gift of his own -- the whole company. The Employee Stock Ownership Plan Moore unveiled means that his 209 employees now own the place and its 400 offerings of stone-ground flours, cereals and bread mixes.

"This is Bob taking care of us," said Lori Sobelson, who helps run the business' retail operation. "He expects a lot out of us, but really gives us the world in return." Moore declined to say how much he thinks the company is worth. In 2004, however, one business publication estimated that year's revenues at more than $24 million. A company news release issued this week stated that Bob's Red Mill has chalked up an annual growth rate of between 20 percent to 30 percent every year since.


Founder of Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods transfers business to employees | Clackamas County News - OregonLive.com

Thats a good example of a family owned and operated business. The bad reputation for private business comes once those family owned and operatede businessess sell out and are run by the financial geniuses and the lawyers.
They will sell their employees out in a heartbeat (if they actually had a heart)

I have noticed that a lot of children of those who parents started the companies have done this in the last fifty years. Maytag is one of those companies if I recall correctly. Small factories around the country have done the same. Many times the children of the pioneers cannot sufficiently run these companies and they end up running them into the ground. On the other hand we fought tooth and nail to keep our operation privately held. We lost the battle because the money people have paid off too many of our agencies, lawyers and judges that were willing to let fraud stand.

 

[California Girl]

You don't speak for me CG, I happen to be a business owner in the private sector. The man you describe here is a shining example of what capitalism should be.

The problem is those who have already fulfilled every need that money can buy, but continue accumulating wealth through exploitation (the Waltons being public enemy #1). When you have billions of dollars, I'm not sure what you do with another $100 Million. It's a sickness, wealth for the sake of wealth, and in the last 30 years it has delivered sickening body blows to the now barely existent middle class.

I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself - unlike some. Fact is, it is our right to work to become wealthy, and to do with our wealth as we see fit. If I want to be a wealth person and succeed, it is my business how much money I earn and what I do with it. It is not anyone else's right to say I have too much and take it from me.

The reason that the middle class is struggling is from too much government, not the wealth of others.

No, the reason the middle class is beyond struggling and becoming extinct is because of too much government that represents only the interests of the wealthy. They are able to buy socialism for themselves and stick the middle class and the poor with 'free markets'.

America today mirrors the sad history of Russia...a failed revolution. We are now burdened with the horrible effects of the failed Reagan revolution. Trickle down was really trickle UP, and Reagan, the great socialist, did more to redistribute wealth than ANY President. All the lessons learned during the Great Depression were suddenly null & void. Reagan and his right wing henchmen sicked the wealthy on the poor and middle class, easy picking when people are basically honest and conscientious and the arbitrators are NOT.

Our last great President defined the role of Chief Executive best:

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Reagan and Bush Jr are the antithesis of Kennedy's vision.

And now we have a government that is interested only in the poor. When do the middle class (the majority) get a government that cares about us?

And, for the record, I really dislike this class distinction that has become part of our culture. We don't need to be defined by 'class', we should be defined by our character.

 

[xotoxi]

I suck!

I wonder if one gets in trouble for altering a soon-to-be-banned sockpuppet's quote?

I'll let you know as soon as I find out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have an honest question for the conservatives here; Where are we on isolationism? How do you guys feel about bringing jobs back, either through tarriffs on imports or on making laws to prohibit outsourcing, or any other means?

Isolationism would encourage same by other nations.

Our nation should, instead, encourage and incentivize individuals entering fields that keep the USA in the lead, globally.

First and foremost is education. All efforts and initiatives aimed at 'equity' or 'social justice' should be shelved in the interests of achievement and performance. BTW, it is this area that President Obama is preforming best, far surpassing any other foreign or domestic policies.
Am I reading too much into your post, or are you unaware that the United States of America is the number one exporter in the world, far outstripping number two?

1. The US is the 3rd largest exporter of goods (8.3%) , after Germany ( 9.5) and China (8.7)
2. The US is the largest exporter of services (13.9 %) followed by UK (8.3) and Germany ( 6.6)
3. Taken as a total of goods and services, the US is more than twice as prolific as the next nearest nation.
http://ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/US_Trade_Overview.pdf


And, of course, welcome to the board.

PC, can you expound on that part which is bolded?

You know that you are putting me in danger of being (correctly) scolded by CG, but ...

1. The goals of educators in the 1960's-1970's moved outside of educational achievement to an extension of new rights and services to groups that laid ever greater claims on K-12 education.
a. ‘Attainment:’ getting more special-needs kids access to more school services, seeing more minority youngsters enroll in college, arranging for more black students to attend the same schools as white students, etc: expecting schools to solve every societal problem.
b. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) giving all disabled youngsters the federally assured right to a ‘free public education’ in the ‘least restrictive environment,’ inaugurating the age of ‘special education.’
c. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act brought new rules and regulations, as well as the temptation to classify as ‘disabled’ millions of children who might have been better served by more adroit teaching or stronger discipline.
d. Even as he signed the IDEA, President Ford said “This bill promises more than the federal government can deliver, and its good intentions could be thwarted by the many unwise provisions it contains.”

2. Evidence began mounting of weak achievement as the priority became the quest for ‘equity.’ Legislatures began to enact “minimum competency” requirements in the mid-70’s. The minimum competency testing was viewed with alarm by teachers, who claimed that a failing student would not be taught by a test, and that teacher judgment over instructional matters was crucial. But between ’75 and ’78, more than 30 states enacted MCT mandates.

3. The Bilingual Education Act dates to 1968, but after 1970 the HEW Office of Civil Rights decided that “discrimination against children deficient in English language skills violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.(Diane Ravitch, “The Troubled Crusade: American Education, 1945-1980, p. 273) But it never ends there: eventually, Washington regulations reversed the entire initiative, and mandated ‘continuing education in their native language.’ So much for a century-old core duty of public education to transform immigrants into English-fluent Americans.

a. And, speaking of court actions that reversed court actions, the 1978 Bakke Decision stated that race could play a role in college admission decisions. So much for the Brown Decision which mandated ‘color blindness.’

b. And more? While the kind of racial segregation that existed prior to ’72 was essentially gone, the Swann Decision (1971) decided on a new standard, any ‘racial imbalance,’ and imposed forced busing in North Carolina. In 1973, the Keyes Decision in Denver extended forced busing to the entire country.

c. Forced busing resulted in large part in ‘white flight,’ and greater segregation than before! Although Earl Warren, in Brown, had noted that segregation in Boston schools had ended in 1855, the infamous Garrity forced busing decision took Boston from 35% minority to 86% minority, and half the size it was in 1970.

d. Another unintended consequence of court action and minority domination of urban school systems, friction between employees of the systems and the new management and student body, often demanding and disrespectful, increased the desire for unionization, offering sanctuary and solidarity.

4. The Nixon and Ford administrations offered little resistance to the perceived need for ‘equity’ by more and more groups, seeking redress for real or imagined injustices. The Democratic Party tied its aspirations tied to those of minorities, women and teacher-union causes. And they commanded the House, and a majority of the Senate the entire time.

a. In 1970, Congress added a billion dollars to the Labor-HEW appropriation bill; Nixon vetoed it, but Congress overrode it. It was the first time any President vetoed the education appropriation.

b. Education acts were all reauthorized, usually with more programs, more mandates and more federal money. And more harder-to-keep promises that schools would solve society’s problems.

c. In 1977, Jimmy Carter won the Presidency with the National Education Association’s first-ever presidential endorsement.

5. With the Democrats regularly overriding Republican vetoes, the education story was that Democrats were more generous to poor kids. But is that the real story?

a. The James S. Coleman 737-page report, with more than 150,000 students in the sample, on the effects of inputs on educational outcomes said the following: ‘inputs’ had relatively little bearing on school results- and that pupil achievement depended more on race, income, social class, family background, and peer group! School funding has little effect on student achievement. Another controversial finding of the Coleman Report was that, on average, black schools were funded on a nearly equal basis by the 1960s.

b. Based on the Coleman Report, Nixon attempted to change the focus from how much was being spent on education, to the outcomes of the spending. This conceptual shift put the emphasis on results, standards and productivity. But the next two decades saw very little desire on the part of politicians to move in this direction: election victories via the ‘equity agenda’ were more important.

c. In his Presidential message of 1970, President Nixon focused on higher education, with a plan to widen federal grant and loan aid for low-income college students, which emerged two years later a Basic Educational Opportunity Grants, now called Pell Grants.

For a much better explanation of the changes and school reform, see "Troublemaker," by Chester E. Finn, Jr.


Based on the Coleman report, emphasis shifted from a fixation on equity and services to student achievement and school performance. It took several decades to reach the policy mainstream, but now we are finally beginning to see better teacher training, stricter graduation requirements, minimum competency tests, and- just this week, NYC using students' grades as a basis to judge whether teachers get tenure.

 

[Alana]

For anyone who thinks the private sector is just a bunch of evil moneygrabbers who don't care about anyone but themselves (that'll be many whining liberals), here is a great example of the kind of people run businesses in this country. .....................What a totally cool guy. These are the people who can turn America around, not the idiots in Washington.

Cetainly Mr. Moore's actions are admirable, and for all you know he may be a liberal (whatever that means).

The country sure won't be turned around by people who can only sling labels around like "whiny liberals" and "idiot congressmen". It will be turned around by people who can look at issues and address them intelligently.

 

[rightwinger]

For anyone who thinks the private sector is just a bunch of evil moneygrabbers who don't care about anyone but themselves (that'll be many whining liberals), here is a great example of the kind of people run businesses in this country. He could have sold it and made even more money but he didn't. He gave it away - to the 209 people who worked for him.

What a totally cool guy. These are the people who can turn America around, not the idiots in Washington.


MILWAUKIE – Scores of employees gathered to help Bob Moore celebrate his 81st birthday this week at the company that bears his name, Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods.

Moore, whose mutual loves of healthy eating and old-world technologies spawned an internationally distributed line of products, responded with a gift of his own -- the whole company. The Employee Stock Ownership Plan Moore unveiled means that his 209 employees now own the place and its 400 offerings of stone-ground flours, cereals and bread mixes.

"This is Bob taking care of us," said Lori Sobelson, who helps run the business' retail operation. "He expects a lot out of us, but really gives us the world in return." Moore declined to say how much he thinks the company is worth. In 2004, however, one business publication estimated that year's revenues at more than $24 million. A company news release issued this week stated that Bob's Red Mill has chalked up an annual growth rate of between 20 percent to 30 percent every year since.


Founder of Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods transfers business to employees | Clackamas County News - OregonLive.com

Thats a good example of a family owned and operated business. The bad reputation for private business comes once those family owned and operatede businessess sell out and are run by the financial geniuses and the lawyers.
They will sell their employees out in a heartbeat (if they actually had a heart)

Selling your business for a profit does not actually make you a bad or heartless person. People are allowed to do with their business as THEY CHOOSE to do. I happen to admire this guy for giving his to his employees. His family are well taken care of and obviously have no need of a hugely profitable business so he gave it away. I respect and admire that - because it was his choice. I certainly would not have criticised him for choosing to sell it. Nor would I judge him as for it. It is the obsession of the left to think ill of people who are successful.

The left has nothing against people being successful. The majority of people on the left are very sucessful.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself - unlike some. Fact is, it is our right to work to become wealthy, and to do with our wealth as we see fit. If I want to be a wealth person and succeed, it is my business how much money I earn and what I do with it. It is not anyone else's right to say I have too much and take it from me.

The reason that the middle class is struggling is from too much government, not the wealth of others.

No, the reason the middle class is beyond struggling and becoming extinct is because of too much government that represents only the interests of the wealthy. They are able to buy socialism for themselves and stick the middle class and the poor with 'free markets'.

America today mirrors the sad history of Russia...a failed revolution. We are now burdened with the horrible effects of the failed Reagan revolution. Trickle down was really trickle UP, and Reagan, the great socialist, did more to redistribute wealth than ANY President. All the lessons learned during the Great Depression were suddenly null & void. Reagan and his right wing henchmen sicked the wealthy on the poor and middle class, easy picking when people are basically honest and conscientious and the arbitrators are NOT.

Our last great President defined the role of Chief Executive best:

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Reagan and Bush Jr are the antithesis of Kennedy's vision.

And now we have a government that is interested only in the poor. When do the middle class (the majority) get a government that cares about us?

And, for the record, I really dislike this class distinction that has become part of our culture. We don't need to be defined by 'class', we should be defined by our character.

It doesn't matter how you FEEL, class distinction has become a reality...a plutocracy

 

[RodISHI]

Now all we have to do is get rid of the folks in Washington standing in their way.

Standing in whose way? See the way I see it is we have too many people in regulatory positions that have allowed mega corps to murder middle class America and it has been both parties who sold out to these giants. Who, which ones and why? Clinton did more damage to middle class American than any other president in history and the dems still have the Clinton's in there. Talk about heartless people. The reps have thought that warring powers would be sufficient and it obviously is not the answer. War and the banking industry has brought this country to her knees. Trickle down works only if you have ethical people at the top. We obviously have not had this and many reps were at the top while these scandals like as when Enron took place. Too many people willing to look the other way as crooks and thieves fill their pockets is what has happened to this country and it is still foremost on so many minds that they can keep their pockets full and this country will survive it. They are in error. The continued greed will consume this country until she breaks if leaders keep going on as if they can continue to lie to the people selling them down the path like it was yesterday and the money flow will never end. The Middle-class played a part in this as they themselves wanted to and still want their money to grow off the backs of the poor. Everyone played their part to the fullest. The poor man sold himself to the banker because he wanted to own a home. The middle class also sold themselves as they could only see that they wanted to live a little more like the wealthy.

 

[California Girl]

No, the reason the middle class is beyond struggling and becoming extinct is because of too much government that represents only the interests of the wealthy. They are able to buy socialism for themselves and stick the middle class and the poor with 'free markets'.

America today mirrors the sad history of Russia...a failed revolution. We are now burdened with the horrible effects of the failed Reagan revolution. Trickle down was really trickle UP, and Reagan, the great socialist, did more to redistribute wealth than ANY President. All the lessons learned during the Great Depression were suddenly null & void. Reagan and his right wing henchmen sicked the wealthy on the poor and middle class, easy picking when people are basically honest and conscientious and the arbitrators are NOT.

Our last great President defined the role of Chief Executive best:

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Reagan and Bush Jr are the antithesis of Kennedy's vision.

And now we have a government that is interested only in the poor. When do the middle class (the majority) get a government that cares about us?

And, for the record, I really dislike this class distinction that has become part of our culture. We don't need to be defined by 'class', we should be defined by our character.

It doesn't matter how you FEEL, class distinction has become a reality...a plutocracy

Image removed cuz it's boring crap.

I am at liberty to bemoan the coming of the 'class' society, if I am inclined to, you idiot.

 

[Bfgrn]

And now we have a government that is interested only in the poor. When do the middle class (the majority) get a government that cares about us?

And, for the record, I really dislike this class distinction that has become part of our culture. We don't need to be defined by 'class', we should be defined by our character.

It doesn't matter how you FEEL, class distinction has become a reality...a plutocracy

Image removed cuz it's boring crap.

I am at liberty to bemoan the coming of the 'class' society, if I am inclined to, you idiot.

A temper tantrum is not an argument, it's a behavioral disorder. Yours is the result of being overmatching.

 

[rightwinger]

And, for the record, I really dislike this class distinction that has become part of our culture. We don't need to be defined by 'class', we should be defined by our character.

God bless you California Girl

It is an honor for all of us to post with you