Jobs used as bargaining chip
 

Big business fucking the middle class again.

From here
From here

Did someone say "tax"? :eek: OMG, the shame! But then again, the upper 5% in wealth probably are too busy buying from Tiffany's to bother with Amazon.

Whats the income at 5% Sam?
IIRC, Its about $150,000. Thats not all that wealthy in the real world.

Now if you want to go at the top 1 or 2%. . .

Good question, Classic. I did a Google search on it and most of statistics I found seem to agree with you that the lower boundary of adjusted gross income for the upper 5% starts at about $159,000. For the top 1% AGI starts at $380,000 and goes up from there.

In addition, the top 50% have a share of 87% of the national AGI, while the bottom 50% have a share of 13% of the national AGI. Pretty wide gap there.

$150,000 may not be all that wealthy in the real world, but what does that then imply for $30,000 or $40,000? REALLY not all that wealthy?

Surprising innit?

Whats the income at 50%?
I don't know how different that is versus years past, but it certainly doesn't surprise me. There will always be some with more than others.
Really, not all that wealthy.

Found this ...

I don't know...Last I checked, I live in the real world and $150K seems pretty damn wealthy to me.

$30 or 40K could cover the bills for a single person in a large city, but you would have to do some serious budgeting.

The last full time job I had (2004-2006) I was paid £13.5k per annum.

That works out as a little under $22k per year. Some of that went to Income Tax and National Insurance. Leaving me with a net income of: approximately £10900, or $17700

Out of which I had to pay $7300 in rent, $800 in Council Tax, and approx. $2500 in Gas and electric.

After rent, tax and fuel, I was left with approximately $7k per year for everything else.

And that's in the North, where prices are comparatively low.

I remember going through this before, when a poster claimed he could live on x amount and I honestly didn't believe it.
Turns out things are a lot cheaper in the States.
But then they don't have the safety net we have.

I currently earn £5k.
I pay my debts, my parents and feed Diz and myself.
Paying my prescription every two months and going to the dentist every six months is something I have to budget for. Whereas it just used to be something that happened.

God, the amount of jobs I applied for this summer.
I'm beginning to think I might have to do the unthinkable and get a cleaning job.
No. I know I hate it. I'll end up phoning in sick and despising myself.
Fingerers crossed that the school starts its breakfast club soon - I'm so up for that. And I hope they won't be inundated with other applicants because most jobs at schools are filled by Mums, and what Mum would voluntarily start the school run an hour and a half early?

More class warfare, it's all about the have's and have nots with you... You also ignore the fact that that top percent already pays almost all of the federal income tax....:rolleyes:

Here is a potential source of savings....

Undocumented workers got billions from IRS in tax credits, audit finds


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z3

You bet! I think that disparity in income is outrageous. The United States is turning into a plutocracy if its not already there. Sure, let that top percent go back to paying the same amount amount of tax as before their minion, George W., pushed through those tax breaks for them.

Why so much surprise? Posted repeatedly was the problem when George Jr was promoting those tax cuts. Find previous claims that Kennedy tax cuts would make everything better. Also posted was the reality about a more massive downturn.

Worst recessions were preceded by the richest getting wealthier. Warren Buffet long ago was complaining about his receptionist paying tax rates much higher than he. When the rich were getting richer while all other were not, then the Great Depression occurred - as was posted back then. During George Jr's tenure, the only other time in America history that disparity was increasing. What resulted. Notice how many in the Cellar have problems finding work. We have the economy created when, well ...

Make a law that requires everyone to replace their lawn every year. Then GDP numbers will increase - as extremists politicians love. What happens many years later when that new lawn does not result in any return on investment? Welcome to this recession. That example was posted how long ago? We have the recession we wanted because so many remained silent or encouraged George Jr's welfare to the rich. So that lawn example was posted.

We are witnessing what was obvious long ago. Economics takes revenge on all when economics are 'improved' by money games. We have the economy that we all wanted.

Class warfare is what that top 1% has been engaged in for the last few decades. Just because they don't use the 'C' word, doesn't make what they've been doing class neutral.

And Obama and his ilk are playing it to the hilt to get re-elected. What a narrow minded group of people...

Yea, we call that a free market economy. What do you call it? What system would you propose?

You are such a bitch, Merc. Are you trying to make someone say, "socialism?"

What you imagine to be a "free market economy" is destroying this economy. There won't be a "free market" anything if large corporations and obscenely big earners don't stop sitting on their stockpiles of cash and start putting it into play.

Life is a bitch, not me. :)

Here is a good summary of Obama's many fails...

Conservatives vs. the Keynesian Purists

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...n_purists.html

One in which the gulf between the wealthy and the rest isn't widening practically by the hour. One in which big business and the financial sector aren't bailed out constantly and aren't allowed absolute free reign to act in ways contrary to the public good. One in which an economic and political elite isn't allowed to create an effective monopoly on wealth and capital.

:thumb::notworthy

but...but Dana- what you fail to see is that merc imagines himself as one of the economic and political elite. He is one of the top 1%! at least in his own mind - so why on earth would he want things to become more equal? He fancies himself wealthy! He's a yacht club member (albeit without the yacht...) and he does his master's bidding...(they let him polish their big boats and carry their cocktails )

:lol:

It's gratifying to know that we, the taxpayers, paid him, setting up the rise to his lofty position. :cool:

I wonder if he gets a military pension, funded by us.

If I understand his bio, he is recently, mostly, off the teat, after having his education, housing, health care etc... all paid for by us. It doesn't count though, because he suckled on the defense teat not one of the other nipples.

Think of him what you will, but he put his life on the line repeatedly for you to be able to come here and complain about him.

I don't agree with him all the time either, but the man deserves your respect for his service to his country.
Some of you seem to have forgotten that.

ftfy

He does not deserve, nor does he have, my respect.

Criminals "served" their country, too, as soldiers. Generalizations don't work. Just because you signed up and wore a uni doesn't automatically grant you status in my eyes. Even Napoleon 'served' his country.

:lol:

I don't think military service in and of itself means someone is worthy of respect. That said, I also don't think veteran benefits can be in any way compared to wider benefits for citizens. Veteran benefits are there to recognise and reward (and act as an incentive) for those who sacrificed their individual freedom temporarily and in some cases their lives, in service to their country.

The notion that he did all that in order for us to be able to have this discussion is a moot point. I'm really not at all certain that fighting most American soldiers (and British for that matter) have engaged in for the past half century had anything to do with American freedom.

Merc, like any other soldier absolutely earned the right to veteran benefits.

What is sad is that raising the next generation of Americans, often at the exoense of personal career fulfilment, or caring for elderly relatives (the nation's elderly) is not counted as service to the nation, regardless of sacrifice, personal or otherwise.

9/11 was long enough ago that we no longer have to pretend that is true. Our over-size military is more a threat to our way of life than any petty tyrant overseas. We damage our people by brain-washing them to believe false ideologies and then bring them back to civilian life with a skewed vision of reality and too often mental disorders from the violence that leaves a swath of damaged families that the unnecessary folks like teachers, health care workers, and social workers have to clean up after. The real founding fathers believe a standing army to be a threat to liberty. They were correct. rant off

merc is, in my eyes, A Klansman who is OK with forwarding the agenda of BernieM. ---and if Merc was smart he'd know he was backing a Jew...but ;he's not that smart.

[quote=DanaC;754303]Merc, like any other soldier absolutely earned the right to veteran benefits[/DANAC]

yesh.

even soldiers who killed innocent civvies. Amen, dana. baby, you can't have it both ways. which I am thinking dana more and more wants.

No. I just think that if you have a standing army, part of the social contract made with those soldiers is that they will be looked after later when they return to civilian life. It was one of the very earliest forms of citizenship based state responsibility and it remains important.

Soldiers do not choose the wars they fight or the enemies they face. We, the civilian world make that decision for them. Whether they are killing innocent civilians or armed enemies raises moral questions for us, in the civilian and political spheres to deal with. Soldiers just go where they are sent.

Unless you wish to dismantle the army entirely, that social contract should stand, regardless of the moral underpinnings of any individual war.

It's got fuck all to do with wanting to have anything both ways. If anything the view that soldiers should be somehow debarred from assistance because they killed innocets or because they fought an unjust war is wanting to have things both ways. Either we have armies of soldiers trained and conditioned to follow orders in the field of battle or we dont. Can;t have them and then expect them to have individual responsibility for the nature of the wars we send them to fight.

Another thing to consider is that the majority of recruits to the army are drawn from the lower economic strata of society. The army has always (in the pre- and modern era) provided a route into training and education for people who would not have that opportunity otherwise.

My problem is, and always has been, with the politicians who make the decision to go to war. Though merc may not be an example of this, soldiers are and always have been primarily the same social class as workers.

I can appreciate your perspective, but
The founding fathers also kept slaves and didn't think women deserved the right to vote ... and and and ... Its a different world.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

Ike recognized the need and the danger. The effect on our national spirit having already taken its toll, we live with a government capable of shocking violence compared to what middle American expectations were before WWII. This violence is sold to us with great moral surety. Based on our spending and debt the use of violence for national ends is regarded more highly than any other single economic or political value. It is a different world, one of our own making.

I keep seeing this thread title and thinking of Steve Jobs.
Picturing him tied up in a basement somewhere, all skinny and grey.

It makes me sad.

*Some* people enter the military with honorable, patriotic ideas.
*Some* people enter the military because it's a job that they are able to do, and it's their best option.
*Some* people enter the military because they have no other options.
*Some* people enter the military for other reasons.

They are all aware of what they are getting into, and are paid for their service.

You're right, they've all earned, more or less, a pension/benefits. In fact, if their service damaged them mentally or physically, we taxpayers have an obligation to provide a safety net - just as we do for non-military folks in similar circumstances. Having served in the military does not give anyone license to espouse the concepts that mercy does and continue to have my respect. If he had directly saved my life, I would be grateful to mercy, but still not respect him.

I just have to do nothing by bite my tongue and roll my eyes..... enjoy your freedom on our blood. It is our duty.. Your country men have bled to death for hundreds of years to allow you to make those statements and I hope all of their deaths were worth it for your sake. Remember that as you strike out against our sacrifice.......

I did not die in these wars as many of you would have wished....

but a number of my good friends have. Sorry to disappoint. May all of you have the ability to voice your opinions and differences in an open and honest forum or media without interference from the state or any organization which wishes to squash your freedoms.

Silly cunt....

You're so sensitive for such a classless jerk.

:lol: Please tell me your feelings are not hurt..... :cry:

You're aiming that at me? I've posted that soldiers earn their beneifts and I'm the one you're pointing at?


Soldiers join up and go where their country sends them. They fight and die in the wars the civilian and political sphere choose for them. Whatever motivation those soldiers have for dong what they do: the civilians who sent them to war in Iraq (for example) were not doing so in order to preserve or defend America.


As to my own countrymen fighting and dying for hundreds of years. True that. But not so that I could have my freedom. Ok, you could possibly make that argument about World War 2. But that's about it.

Most of my countrymen who have died on the field of battle in the last two hundred years have done so to further the imperial adventures of the nation.

Not in the least bit. Its fun when I can do something that causes you to show your true colors once again. Thanks.

People who work outside of the military die doing their jobs, too.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/09...angerous-jobs/

~ a friendly reminder ~

It is an honorable thing to serve one's country for two years in some way, whether it be in the military, senior corps, peace corps or merely volunteering to pick up trash on a highway.

We honor those who died while in service to the country not because they died, but because they did so while serving us. Serving. You and me. Whatever they did, and whatever our attitude towards that was, they did it to serve you and me.

And so, unless we did more for our various countries than pay taxes, in acknowledging our role in something larger than ourselves, we should probably shut the fuck up.

We should honor them, but we don't have to shut the fuck up if we have a problem with the way the armed forces are used.

Merc isn't getting picked on for that. He is getting picked on for his political beliefs.

Too many people have difficulty understanding the difference.

I think everyone in this thread sees the difference clearly, but they also see it quite realistically, too. Merc shouldn't have to be treated any differently simply because he chose to go into the armed services. The quip about him not being on the government teat anymore, although somewhat crass, still plays into the discussion, and isnt being disrespectful.

And I got on him for playing the 'honor thy soldier' card with too much of a heavy hand.

Ummm..there have been thousands upon thousands of deaths in the construction field - many of those men died building our bridges, railroads, dams, high-rises, etc. The same is true in factories and in the mining industry. In fact, fatal work injuries in the USA number around 4500 yearly. These men don't get the same reverence.

We honor those who died while in service to the country not because they died, but because they did so while serving us. Serving. You and me.

No? Oh, they were serving the business owners, whose interests are nowadays being served by the military. Same difference.

UT, you changed your post.

Originally you wrote something along the lines of 'they weren't serving you and me' - referring to men who die on the job.

Yes, any post of mine should be considered a first draft for five minutes.

Yeah, OK. I see its necessary to quote your posts for relevance then.

:thumb: I respect your views and your idea that we have different views on the issue. Even though I know you are wrong and will never understand or see the world through my understanding and depth of experience. I don't judge you for it, nor do I condemn you for it, I understand you are naive and have no idea what the fuck you are talking about and don't hold that against you.

Merc didn't die.

Are you saying that you honor people who build our roads and bridges, who prepare and serve our food, who voluntarily pick up trash along the highway, who treat our illnesses the same way that you honor those who have served in the military? They serve us, and many have died while serving us. If not, why not?

Again, just because you were in the military doesn't mean that you should be honored. I know many guys who spent their time in the military getting high and drunk, as often as possible. People in the military are just like the rest of the population. Some should be honored. They chose to work in an occupation, they were compensated for their effort.

I'd agree with that. The shame of it isn't that soldiers get benefits. the shame of it is that their's is an exclusive sacrifice, and has been allowed to eclipse all other sacrifices in the national consciousness.