Reading comp is not your forte, is it? Or did you re-read it four or five times looking for a way to distort this article to fit your hate mongering wants and needs? Because you managed to come accross as a hate-mongering snob who looks down on others who might "dislike those that are better off than themselves."

Not all of us who are not rolling in money and affluence consider those who are weathy "better off." I am happy in my lower middle-class life. Most weathy people are freaking misserable. Like you, obviously...

I am with you Archangel I will fight with teh people with money. More of a chance of winning.

I am with you Archangel I will fight with teh people with money. More of a chance of winning.

Its rare that someone will just admit to being a chickenshi+ lackey without even being asked about it. You're quite a find, Presidente.

maybe rich people are tired of those without constantly complaining about what they have that others have. Also, maybe rich people are tired of always being asked to give something for nothing. Not all rich people are trust fund babies, many if not most worked their asses off to get what they have. For those that are complaining about rich people, try putting that energy into being more productive and perhaps you will gain more riches for your efforts, on your own. Fact is, someone has to be on top, it is those below that seem to care the most about what others then to have. Life is not fair nor equal, time to start realizing where you belong and deal with it.

Actually, the statistics are quite clear. The vast majority of rich people were born rich. The vast majority of poor people were born poor. Social mobility is a myth in this country. Its mathematical fact, you can't really argue with it. I'm sure that won't stop anyone here though.

archangel 3:16 wrote: "Another propaganda piece from MSN, how lovely. Did the researchers ever consider the fact that people in a better economic situation aren't as sensitive because they really don't have the need to be? "

Yes, the researchers did consider that. The article SAYS they considered that. Here's a quote from the article above:

"Kraus says that's likely because people from lower-economic backgrounds may have to rely on others for help. You turn to people, it’s an adaptive strategy,' he says. 'You develop this sort of heightened independence with other individuals as a way to deal with not having enough individual resources.' Upper-class people, on the other hand, don’t need to ask for help that often'."

Your post is yet another example of why people shouldn't criticize scientific papers they haven't read. You didn't read the actual peer reviewed scientific paper -- you read a NEWS article about it and didn't even absorb what the news article said.

The tearing apart of our country was my idea after the 9/11 attacks. Please don't give the Dems credit for all my hard work.

Karl Rove (aka Capote); LMAO!

Very well said. How can the Dems be so ignorant not to understand your points? Of course the DNC cares nothing about anyone but themselves and how to buy more votes with taxpayer money.

"Toomuchtime", your arrogance here is palpable and insulting. It's time for you to rethink, and there's actually plenty of time for that, but sooner rather than later would be advantageous for all.

jcj78-2595262 - Actually, the statistics are quite clear. The vast majority of rich people were born rich.

Why don't you quote the source of these "statistics". I know people who worked their a$$es off, saved money, sacrificed many other things and did without luxury items to reach their financial goals, only to find that someone is always trying to take it away. If they EARNED their money legitimately, they have the RIGHT as Americans to keep it.

The vast majority of poor people were born poor.

This is true, but only because the poor procreate at the highest numbers. This can be seen on every continent on Earth. The poorest populations grow at the highest rates. It's their own fault for not keeping it in their pants, and having children they can't feed. It's not my fault. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em!

Social mobility is a myth in this country.

Yeah..right! That's why people risk their lives ESCAPING from a communist country like Cuba on a homemade raft to come here to the U.S. where capitalism has created more opportunity and distributed more wealth to common people than any other system in history. Put down your Communist Manifesto, it's a giant LIE. It doesn't work, and you have been suckered.

What a stupid article. Didn't it occur to the writer that most upper middle and lower rich people started out poor. As for trust fund babies, I know a lot of "rich" people and not one of them got their money through a trust fund. Class warfare, indeed.

Yeah..right! That's why people risk their lives ESCAPING from a communist country like Cuba on a homemade raft to come here to the U.S. where capitalism has created more opportunity and distributed more wealth to common people than any other system in history. Put down your Communist Manifesto, it's a giant LIE. It doesn't work, and you have been suckered.

Yeah..right! That's why people risk their lives ESCAPING from a capitalist country like Mexico in a steel cargo box that is a death trap to come here to the U.S. where they can work for slave wages and face constant racism and threat of deportation so that the stockholders at the chicken processing plant can see a profit in their portfolio.

Mexico is capitalist. You fascists constantly scream that Mexicans come here for "free education" and "Free healthcare" and all the "socialism". By YOUR OWN STANDARDS YOU PROVED THAT CAPITALISM FAILS. Thanks for the help, dunce.

Cite a source for any of this bullshi+:

where capitalism has created more opportunity and distributed more wealth to common people than any other system in history..

I'll be waiting.

mary p- It occured to him that what you assert is statistically false. Most rich people were born rich, not poor or middle class. Stop teaching your children lies that hold them back. It is cruel.

The virtues of the rich are greed, gluttony, and vanity. Someone who endeavors to accumulate more wealth than they need, more than their fair share, to the detriment of those in need, must have a short circuited sense of right and wrong to begin with, so no surprise that they're too self-centered to be able to take another person's perspective. The love of money is the root of all evil and these people LOVE money.

Hey Rebbeca302136. I'm not rich so it is easy to read that you are bitter, ignorant and obviously an under achiever. Yea, not being rich gives me great emotional insight that's for sure.

Ahhh. So we all know poor people are that way because they are lazy, but now you've added a second determining trait, "whining"?! Brilliant!

The new anti-poverty campaign slogan: "Quit yer bitchin', get off your lazy butt and get a job!" Genius!

if social mobility is a myth in America, explain Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and others?

We can thank the class warfare the rich have been winning since polititians discoverd campaing contirbutions come from the rich. U.S.A.: the newest banana republic.

Unfortunately Marky the current trend in social mobility is that the middle class is sinking into the lower class. You will always have people that rise to the top, but for each of the 3 people you listed there's 10s of thousands falling into economic disparity.

Uncle smug and marky might

All us wannabees are booking passage to China to get back our jobs that they took from us. Us people were striving to make money but dem bosses figured we was makin to much money so dey takes dey ball and went home.

any squirrel fidns a nut, same as monkeys pounding on a typewiter theory.

REALLY, unbelieveable - actually emotionally you aren't even worth the post.

So, toomuchtime, when was the last time YOU paid more than 20% of your TOTAL income in taxes? And if you're going to complain about "socialism", move to a place that gets lots of snow -- and pay out of your own pocket to have the roads plowed every time it "happens" to snow! After the third or fourth time paying more than $10,000 so you can get from your house to where you work, you'll be begging for Joe Public to foot the bill.

jcj78-2595262 - are you a psycho or just a complete dick? you remind me of holden caulfield, but you think everyone except you is a "lackey" instead of a phoney. seems like youre just as messed up as him too. get a life

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, reference film "The Pirates of Silicon Valley". Gates was a dweeb who developed then sold his own version of material that he worked on for Jobs when he was at Apple. Jobs subsequently stole that point and click tech from Xerox. Before that he bought DOS from a friend for a pittance and sold it to IBM. Jobs used to make blue boxes to pirate long distance calls and other neferious use of tech. The point is they are all crooks. Everybody thinks Jobs is some visionary God but he has a whole R&D department that comes up with this stuff, like the iPod, and iPhone. I'm sure the designer of those products makes a tenth of what Jobs does. Gates and Jobs are not a visionaries, just hacks with a lot of money and good lawyers. Rich people tend to step on a lot "little people" on the way up, because they largely have no conscience, only an all consuming obsession with coin. Some of you have commented on the Communist Manifesto, which I can say identifies the problem very well with our current situation, it, however, does nothing to resolve it. Communism doesn't work in practice. I don't see an October Revolution in our future for that reason. I would hope to see something that would play out more like the French Revolution with the rich spoiled hypocrites and wealthy manipulators of government, religious, social, and finacial markets being ousted by any means necessary. Think of it as a purge. No more extremists, no more golden parachutes, no more bailouts, no more predatory lendors and insurance plans. Legalizing pot and taxing the hell out if and tobacco, porn, and alcohol would probably pay off the deficit. Taking a tougher stance immigration wouldn't hurt either. Taxing companies that exploit cheap labor in third world countries might bring back manufacturing jobs. A hybrid form of socialist democracy or whatever the term is for what England and Canada have seems to work better for them than pure greed chasing capitalism has for us lately. Least if I lived in one of those countries I have some chance of being treated for an illness if I had no money or insurance. This last recession has decimated the middle class, but is just one of many assualts on it over the last 30 years. I grew up middle class and all for helping people but for too long have the upper class systematically found a way to control the flow of all the money. The top 1 percent control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, and it wasn't that way even 10 years ago. They are strangling the economy to ensure their own greed and uneeded profit. They don't need it, its just greed for the sake of greed. Its time to put an end to it.

Markymark--

Easy--

Gates, Steve Jobs, et al. are called "Outliers" --there will always been a (very) few who will make it big on some idea or other, combined with luck of timing and relevance of skills. The vast, vast majority of us will never even come close. Yet we side with our captors thinking that someday, we, too, will do something magnificent, or win the lottery, and that keeps us from working for the better good of making sure all of us have adequate housing, food, health care. It's a very American state of mind, and ultimately self defeating.

Another reason "poor" people have more finely attenuated facial and non-verbal recognition skills is due to what sociologists have labeled the "out group" or harsher the "slavery" modality in which it behooves the "slave" to be able to ascertain whether or not the master is going to beat you or let you go home.

Not real complicate stuff.

Most of the rich are benefactors of what Warren Buffett calls the "ovarian lottery"!

if social mobility is a myth in America, explain Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and others?

They are by far the exception, not the rule. I'd be surprised if many individuals who amass this kind of wealth were considered "poor" to begin with.

Mexico is capitalist. You fascists constantly scream that Mexicans come here for "free education" and "Free healthcare" and all the "socialism". By YOUR OWN STANDARDS YOU PROVED THAT CAPITALISM FAILS. Thanks for the help, dunce.

You have made no point at all, pinko. Mexico is a disorganized hellhole full of corruption and low skilled workers. They come to the land the white man created to get a piece of what they could not have made on their own. Americans have a standard of living that is the envy of people all over the world. That is because of the system we have. That system is capitalism. It rewards work and skill and drives competition. Competition drives excellence.

Communism drives laziness, apathy, high inefficiency in business and government, and ultimately costs people suckered into such a system their freedom, their rights and their dignity. The common people are reduced to economic slaves to the ruling elite, who now then have the power AND the wealth. Power to the people? No. it's power to the politicians.

Cite a source for any of this bullshi+:

where capitalism has created more opportunity and distributed more wealth to common people than any other system in history..

I'll be waiting.

One does not really need a source for this, one only needs a history book (of which it appears you have been heretofore deprived).

One famous person who did make a similar quote, however, was author and political commentator David Horowits, a FORMER communist in college and early adulthood. Fortunately he grew up. He changed to embrace capitalism when he finally saw that "it was capitalism that had spread the greatest amount of wealth to the most people and afforded the greatest opportunities of any system invented".

Maybe one day you'll wake up from your brainwashed and naive believe in the false promises of communism, but I doubt it.

wow, you must consider yourself upper class and are proving the study to be true..Great job!

the day the 1st bullets fly I will be looking for the front line to get my shots in.

there is nothing else that can be done. According to republicans it doesn't matter what you do, if your poor, jobless it's all your fault. Doesn't matter how you got there. It doesn't matter that you kept yourself employed for most of your life. if your poor they will spit on you

my hatred is boiling over, I suggest many of you get ready for the inevitiable

Toomuchtime, part of what you said is true but when you stated "Where you belong." That made you an ass and wrong. We live in a fascist society.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Why? Because the rich have the financial resources to keep it that way. They like the power and the feeling of superiority. If anything the rich are to be pitied because they've squandered their virtues for riches.

In the words of Will Rogers:

"You can call me hick or rube or even countryboy but I'd still rather be the man that bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the man that sold it."

It's funny how the people that don't make very much have to make all the sacrifices and even face loosing their jobs that will cost them their houses, when the managers that let them go get a big bonus check and if that manager is let go, get a big severane package.

It's funny how the low wage earner sacrifices themselves physically with all these physical ailments and back surgery and other physical disabilties that they can't afford to get taken care of, when their bosses risked very little physically and got to go on big vacations to Europe. Then people wonder why Russia and China and Cuba went communist. The whole reason why there has been so much anti-communist propaganda in the United States since the 1920's is becuase of the rich being in fear of losing what they have and losing their lifestyles. It was all to protect the rich.

The rich who are above prosecution. Many of them supported Nazi Germany during the war and none of them were prosecuted for treason. Some had their assets seized during the war but afterwards it was all returned to them.

So I'd say the article is spot on. The rich are disconnected and need to be removed and made to get back in touch with their roots.

Let's not forget the alleged comment by Marie Antionette, "Let them eat Cake." She allegedly claimed to have never made that comment but it was something to use as propaganda against the royalty in France. It's an example of being disconnected from the people. the backbone of the country.

Randy-2190191

You, sir, have hit on almost all of the same points I've been trying to make in other posts, about how to fix this country's quickly-dwindling middle class and hopeless unemployment level. The poor blame the wealthy man's greed , the rich blame the poor man's apparent laziness. Too much blame, not enough solutions.

I would suggest other options, as well, such as doing away with tax shelters. These shelters are, plain and simple, ways for the wealthy NOT to pay their share of the tax burden. Here's another idea, even though it's far-fetched and will never happen....once the rich get their Bush tax cuts extended, and they actually do what they said they would do (create enough jobs to put every able American adult back to work), we can severely limit people from receiving welfare except in extreme circumstances, for more than 2 years. With their gov't. checks cut off, they will have to get up and get a job (or 2), but hey...the jobs will be plentiful, according to the conservatives.

I really like the idea of rewarding companies who hire American workers, paying American wages, with tax incentives. On the flip side, I would be in favor of levying tax hikes or even fines against American-based companies who refuse to use American labor. I like the "sin tax" you mentioned, as well. We're not going to make tobacco, pot, alcohol, porn, etc. illegal, but we WILL tax them so as to make them hurt your wallet if you insist on purchasing these goods.

The best idea you touched on was the immigration problem. That single issue, if handled in the correct way, could practically solve America's financial problems single-handedly! My stance is we need a zero tolerance policy on illegals and their American-born children. No green card?? Here's a free ride back across the border. Want your child? You can either take him or put him up for adoption. We don't have the manpower to either round them all up and deport them or we don't have the means of defending any further breaches of our borders?? Bring back our troops from the fruitless wars on the Taliban and Al-Qaida and set them up, armed with night vision and high-powered rifles along the southern border with orders to shoot any intruders who don't cross into America legally. The rest of the troops can help Immigration round up the crimin....err....I mean illegals. Watch how many jobs open up. Watch our crime rates go down. Watch our average working wage go up. Watch the instances of illegals draining our resources be eliminated!!

MarkC-1976983, you forgot pride, the root of all other sin. Other than that, spot on.

It sure is funny. The rich and powerful have all this money. We are in financial turmoil. Yet, the rich and powerful do nothing about it. I guess they are not so powerful??

Regan started it all with "trickle up economics" and deregulation. Since then the rich pay MUCH lower taxes, get to put the money into their stock funds and still try to screw the little guy for more tax breaks! Based upon income disparity it can easily be seen that making the rich richer doesn't lead to job investment and "all ships rising with the tide". Since only the rich have ships the rest of us just drown.

I'd just like to thank Machinehead for wallowing in a huge pile of fail.

When you can dig thru your history book to cite a source, dunce, I'll be waiting.

For those who feel a need to defend "other upper class" people, I've got news for you. You're not who you'd like to think you are. If you were rich upper class, first off, you wouldn't be wasting your time reading this, and second you could care less. That's half the problem in this country, we've got a lot of middle class people on ego trips wanting to believe they are superior to the rest of the peasants. Bottom line, they're just not as poor as the majority, yet. These are the people who have been conducting class warfare for years always complaining about those less fortunate than themselves thinking that they're the source of all the problems. The fact is you're only "upper class" because there's people worse off than you. Think about it, without them you'd be nobody. Just another of the peasants.

Need to change the light bulb, your not very bright!

This story has brought out the spirit in people. It does my heart good to see so many people ready to fight for change. That is what America was built on. I think that the time of reckoning may be close at hand. Just remember. The poor outnumber the wealthy 10,000 to 1. There is strength in unity.

Let the games begin. Cocked, locked and loaded. The Jewish people in Germany during the 1930's were subjected to the same type of treatment. Hitler's government took life from them a piece at a time, not all at once. Where do you think that the GOP and Tea Party get there ideology from? That is why they are referred to as "right-wing"...... fascism.

NO WB58, this has been going on long before Reagon was a twinkle in his daddies eye. It's why the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

I'd just like to say that you have proven the whole point of the study. It isn't that the Rich can't learn to be as empathetic as anyone else, it's that they have no incentive to be so. That is why they can't understand why anyone would be or stay poor, ofttimes forgeting that for the most part THEY INHERITED MOST OF THEIR WEALTH. But don't worry, many, many people who are well-to-do now, will soon be coming upon hard times, when those that are even richer that they covet their wealth. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the show. Republifacist vs. Republifacist, God, I love it!

Marky mark. You have just as much of a chance of hitting the lottery as becoming rich if you are not already rich at birth. If you think the founder of Microsoft was born poor you know nothing about wealth in America. He just got richer like all rich people. I am not mad at them. In fact I for one am one of their lackeys because they gave me enough to live a good life and a good retirement from my work for them

Pretty sure that the fact that they are wealthy is why they have no empathy thye have gotten so accustomed to the underlings doing everything they wish that they don't even consider they feelings of them. You have to care about others to have any feeling for them & since the only reason for the lessor people to even exist is to do the things for the rich that they won't/can't do for them selves they never will be concerned.

Garbage in; Garbage Out.

You can get rich by being very lucky, say winning a huge lottery, but the normal route is by exploiting others or being born into it. If you sell a product or service, you charge more than it's worth. (profit). If you make it by investing in the market or other financial instruments, your gain was someone else's loss. It's really that simple and always has been since the beginning of civilization.

There was a time when "value added" manufacturing existed in this country and at least then, more people got a share of the gains. But even then, someone got a bigger share. It's easy to see that as fair, but if someone gets a bigger share, it's only because others got a smaller share. Any way you look at it, it still boils down to someone gaining at the expense of others. It's all a matter of justifying your bigger share. The better you are at justifying it, the richer you can become. So if you're good at justifying it, you probably aren't very empathetic to those you exploit. I'm not making a moral judgement here, just doing the math. Our economy has become one with very little valued added processes anymore, so less will share in any wealth "produced". Successful exploitation has become much more meaningful when it comes to getting rich.

They are talking about people emotions not car maintenance.

AntonioPieve, I think randyk has made an excellent analogy. Analogies, and their partners, metaphors, are quite useful in these situations.

Yet can someone explain why we now let these hood ornaments earn 531 times as much as the average worker in this country? (And, yes, the word "earn' is a euphemism.)

Single Mom-2755498.... I think I can answer that for you. I was once a executive in a company. I had the power to fire anyone in the company short of the owner and the plant manager. The reason behind the pay scale is to insure that you have the "incentive" to be ruthless. As far as the wealthy not being able to distinguish emotions, this article is WRONG. Not being able to distinguish is only a mechanism used to turn off your own feelings when dealing with workers. You become part of the machine.

I resigned my job one day when the owner of the company gave me names of people he wanted fired. When I asked him why, he said they were trying to organize a union. It is against Federal Law to fire someone on those grounds, so he wanted me to "find" a reason to do it, and hide the true reason. In other words, to get my salary, I was to break the law.

As a rich executive with some sense of ethics, you are in the minority. I applaud your decision to go with what's right vs. what you were ordered to do, but understand that the majority of your peers would have just gone ahead and fired those employees.

Attention Underachiever:

We do, and your share too!

Glad we sorted THAT out.

after all that trampleing and killing

no thanks

i am too stupid to steal decieve and yeah kill!!!

Underachiever? My small business has been showing a profit since 1999. That puts me in the upper 90% of small businesses.

Its hilarious to me that to the ivory tower dwellers, I am not a success, but a trust fund baby is. Meritocracy my ass. Social mobility my ass. People don't want to work in this country for a very good reason: That is not the way to success. Social mobility is a myth in America, and the statistics prove this. If you're born rich, you'll die rich. If you're born poor, you'll die poor. The odds are overwhelming.

I'm for helping the rich die rich, only at a faster rate than they are now. I can't wait until they cut government funding to the point that there is no one to protect them anymore, since we all know they can't do it without their lackies. So get on with it, so we can.

When you're head is on a stake, then it will be sorted out. I have no idea that you'll force the rest of us to go that route too, if history be any clue. And we will, have no illusions.

The top 10% of earners pay 90% of the nations taxes. You still want more? Who's the greedy one?

Why keep repeating that lie? Income taxes =/= taxes. Yes, I want more. And I will take it by force if need be. Any more questions, lackey?

JADED, couldnt have said it better. My mine is at ease. Now back to making money.

jcj78 there is no way you are a business owner and have this attitude. WAY too much hatred directed at people who make a good living. Jealousy is a trait for losers. Why don't you spend more time making money and less time wanting the government to reach into the pockets of people you never met. Give the tough guy talk a rest -- you sound like a douche

LMAO, if being called a moron by a lackey doesn't lend me credibility, I don't know what will.

Wild Bill is not wild. He's completely domesticated. He lives his sad life on a leash, held at the other end by a man in a Brooks Brothers. And Wild Bill loves his master. He wags his little tail everytime his master speaks to him, or looks his way. Because Wild Bill is a good dog. And that's all.

jcj78 there is no way you are a business owner and have this attitude. WAY too much hatred directed at people who make a good living. Jealousy is a trait for losers. Why don't you spend more time making money and less time wanting the government to reach into the pockets of people you never met

Since 1999, darling. Believe it, or don't. What a lap dog thinks has no bearing on me at all. But it is true, just like its true that you're a lackey. I can't help it, all I can do is point out that it IS true.

And I have met them, btw. And having met them, I DO want MY government to tax more of their money. You're right about that part. I guess one out of five or six ain't all that bad, for a lap dog.

Sounds like you should be angry at you parents or grandparents for not being rich when they had you since that is how "most" people get their money. Is your whole family lazy or just you?

We've been farmers here on this same ground since it was the Mississippi Territory. Do you know a lot of lazy farmers? Do you know any farmers? Didn't think so. That's probably because you only talk to other lackies, like your family.

Anyway, to answer your nosy questions, we in the same economic bracket we've always been in. This is because social mobility is a myth in America. We already covered this. From now on, try to keep up, hun, or you'll have to stay out of the grown up's discussions, okay?

If you have been making increased pofits since 1999 I would think you would be a little happier about it. You ought to be doing some farming right now instead of talking trash on your computer. Bet you get a lot of government cheese being a farmer

Death and Taxes... I always thought that was the parable of certainty. I never heard anyone espouse classwarfare and threaten harm as you do, jcj8, all under the guise of fairness. I would caution you to be careful how you speak to your fellow Americans but more to the point be careful if you set foot on my property.

And I was born to a father who went into the Army, was a coal miner, went to school to get a business degree, started working on the white collar side and retired a vice president of sales. With that silver spoon I chose to go to the Army, get an Engineering Degree (with my own money), and now I am a successful executive too.

Amazing! Maybe instead of redistributing my hard earned money we could redistribute my work ethic, the one I inherited from my father, who got it from his coal miner father and so on? What you think? Or would you rather just be a pric k?

Attn jcj....

Stop taking farm subsidies. Thanks. I wonder how you felt about the Bush Tax cuts...must have helped out you poor little farmers. I also wonder how you feel about the Death Tax the Dems are so fond of, you know the one where farmers have to sell the farm to pay the taxes. Too bad that land is so valuable.

Rational American

LMAO! "be careful if you set foot on my property".

"Stay off my grass, you pesky kids!""

You're that old man, aren't you? You never heard anyone espouse class warfare like I do? You ever watch that asshat Glenn Beck? That @!$%#'ll send you into cardiac arrest if I upset you. True, he's all about stealing from the poor to pay the rich, but that's class warfare, too, right?

The funny thing to me is, you probably think that you're one of the "wealthy people" in America. And even funnier is that you're almost certainly not really one of them. But tricking you into voting for policies that protect them is how they keep a hold on power. And you're just the kind of second generation sucker to fall for that @!$%#, according to your own tale.

FTR, if it comes down to having hungry kids, or being a prick, I'll be a prick. And me and a bunch of other pricks with hungry kids who can hit moving targets at 600 yards will be along sooner or later, and we'll see how good your eyes are then, okay gramps? tick tock tick tock

Yep, the poor are all just lazy, and we can all be Donald Trump if we just try hard enough! And you should also play the lottery as much as possible, because the more time you spend picking your numbers, the better chance you'll have of winning...

The name of the game is we all start at the finish line and then Im going to do everything to blow your ass away. Great mentality kid

Perhaps if everyone paid their fair share instead of expecting someone else to do there wouldn't be just a deficit.

R.A.,

Did you just use "farmer" as an insult? You are disgusting.

Did you just try to make the argument that 50% of us don't make enough money to even be taxed, and try to make it sound like it's their fault for being poor? You are completely ignorant.

If you have been making increased pofits since 1999 I would think you would be a little happier about it. You ought to be doing some farming right now instead of talking trash on your computer. Bet you get a lot of government cheese being a farmer

Do you enjoy constantly making a public ass of yourself?

There is a focking blizzard right now, makes it a little hard to run a tractor. Thanks for the farming advice though, lackey, I'll file it in the appropriate trash bin. You been farming long, telling everyone else how to do it?

I farmed turfgrass exlusively until 2006. If you can find me a government subsidy for turfgrass, with all that farming knowledge you possess, hook a brother up. Since 2006, and the GOP killing of the housing market, I have farmed some soybeans (about 30% of my acerage), which do get a subsidy. I bet that doesn't stop you from woofing down that processed food that they are in, between licking rich folks boots, does it?

My business is in Madison Co, AL, Forbes Magazines' #1 Place to Survive the Economic Downturn. I'm not sure where you live, but I am sure that the economy here is better. And, no, I am not happy with the downward spiral Dubya pitched us into, lackey.

I am 44 and was taught how to shoot in the US Army. Bring it. As far as being rich or not rich, the discussion is as pertinent to me as it is to you, dirt farmer.

• Taxes stifle growth.
• 50% of us pay no taxes.
• 50% of us have no skin in the game.
• 50% of us want more for less or nothing.

I suggest you are truly ignorant of the world in which you live

I am 32, and never signed my rights away. I am a well armed free man, don't you wish you could say the same, lackey? Why do you fascists insist on repeating the lie that 50% of people don't pay taxes? I'm guessing its because lying is GOP SOB SOP. Cite a source for any of your hilarious bullet points, there, suit, and I'll take them for something other than the words of a lackey suit.

If I'm so ignorant, why do I know more about social mobility in America than you, suit?

Redskins

The name of the game is we all start at the finish line and then Im going to do everything to blow your ass away. Great mentality kid.

I wouldn't expect a natural born slave to understand it. Don't you have something important to do, like watch grown men in tights chase a little ball around and touch each others butts?

I am 44 and was taught how to shoot in the US Army. Bring it. As far as being rich or not rich, the discussion is as pertinent to me as it is to you, dirt farmer.

• Taxes stifle growth.
• 50% of us pay no taxes.
• 50% of us have no skin in the game.
• 50% of us want more for less or nothing.

I suggest you are truly ignorant of the world in which you live.

Well a lot of people right now do pay 0 in income tax, but that is not anywhere near all taxes that are paid in this country. Everybody with a job still pays social security and medicare taxes. Everyone with a car pays gasoline and registration taxes. Everyone that owns a house pays property taxes. Most states have some form of state taxes whether it's the aforementioned property tax or sales tax, or even another income tax. This list doesn't even include things as innocuous as telecommunication taxes on your phone bill or luxury taxes on things such as alcohol and cigarrettes.

So to claim that half the people don't pay any taxes is disingenuous. The sad part is that those flat tax rates adversely effect the poorer americans greater than the wealthier ones. So please before you spout that people don't pay any taxes at least take into account all taxes paid for in this country. Not just one, the federal income tax.

jcj78-2595262 - are you a psycho or just a complete dick? you remind me of holden caulfield, but you think everyone except you is a "lackey" instead of a phoney. seems like youre just as messed up as him too. get a life

lerxst2112
The top 10% of earners pay 90% of the nations taxes. You still want more? Who's the greedy one?

Oh, yeah, y'all pay more in dollars -- but y'all skate by with paying less than 15% of your TOTAL income, too. Try paying more than 20% some time, like the rest us!

Oh, wait, that would just be too difficult for you to do -- since even 80% of $200 Thousand just ain't enough to get by on. [/sarcasm] Funny how millions (if not hundreds of millions) of U.S. Citizens are "somehow" able to get by on less than $30 Thousand -- AFTER taxes!

When people start complaining about how 50% of the people in the US pay 100% of the taxes (I'm doubtful this is even true), I'm astonished that they don't understand the implications of their statement. If 50% of people pay 100% of the taxes that means that the other 50% don't make enough money to be taxed. Which means they are earning a yearly income below the poverty line.

So a better question might be this: If the rich don't want to pay so much in taxes, why don't they pay their employees a better wage so they don't have to?

well if the wealthy want the rest of to pay more taxes pay us better wages and give us back our retirement and healthcare benefits dumbasses.

If 2% of this country owns 90% of the wealth then 2% of this country needs to pay 90% of the taxes. That is common sense math,

If this is a problem I suggest running for your lives, because we are coming for you !

To help with this wonderful discussion on who pays what. Source:http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The top 1% pay 38.02 percent share of income taxes while the bottome 50% make up only 2.7%

MSN did an article about this not long ago, I have no opinion on this matter. Just providing some facts for the argument that's constructive and not name calling.

Funny how millions (if not hundreds of millions) of U.S. Citizens are "somehow" able to get by on less than $30 Thousand -- AFTER taxes!

Actually, a lot of working folks try desperately to squeeze by on less than 30K BEFORE taxes! Try it sometime.

Jc,

You angry much? You sound like a nut case. As to social status, I went from no HS education and homeless to making over 100k/yr. Hard work and an education. This country is one of the few places this can occur. Was it more difficult than someone with a silver spoon? YES. Do I hold any angst towards those who had the silver spoon? NO. Life is not fair and we are not all created equal, find your strength and capitalize on it. Will I ever make millions, NO, however I will say that I have no desire to make millions, I would rather work my job and come home to my family without the stress that comes with making millions.

Actually, You're wrong jcj7. He's understating his case, the top 10% of taxpayers pay 69.94% of the nation's taxes. That is people who make over $113,799. So 50% was actually an understatement.

Now is a good time to interject some quotes from the First American, and the most influential founder of the United States - Benjamin Franklin.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

The top 50% of tax payers pay 97.3% of the nation's taxes, the bottom 50% pay 2.7%.

It's obvious to see the problem isn't the money or where it comes from, it's the size of government and ridiculous expansion into our lives, liberty, and freedoms. (what's left of them)

Go ahead and take a look for yourself: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Stop taking farm subsidies. Thanks. I wonder how you felt about the Bush Tax cuts...must have helped out you poor little farmers. I also wonder how you feel about the Death Tax the Dems are so fond of, you know the one where farmers have to sell the farm to pay the taxes. Too bad that land is so valuable.

I was against the Bush Tax Cuts. I still am. Did they help the little farmers? Cite a source.

When the GOP started spreading the death tax lies in 2000, the American Farmers Federation gathered data on all the farms in the country since 1945, to come up with a figure on how many family farms were lost to the death tax. The GOP ran commercials on TV that you obviously remember about all the farmers who lost their land.

The American Farmer's Federation couldn't find A SINGLE FAMILY FARM LOST TO THE DEATH TAX. EVER. NOT ONE.

The death tax doesn't affect family farmers, or small businesses, because it has such a high exemption. I doubt that simple facts will stop you from repeating this same lie again and again though. Its GOP SOB SOP, and you're obviously a GOP SOB.

Jhayes

Jc,

You angry much? You sound like a nut case. As to social status, I went from no HS education and homeless to making over 100k/yr. Hard work and an education. This country is one of the few places this can occur.

Cite a source.

"

Although the United States occupies a middle ground in international comparisons of occupational mobility, its ranking in terms of income mobility is lower. Both the United States and Great Britain have significantly less economic mobility than Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and possibly Germany; and the United States may be a less economically mobile society than Great Britain.⁴⁵ Much of the higher intergenerational elasticity in the United States is due to greater income immobility at the top and bottom of the earnings distribution; the mobility of middle earners looks more similar to that in the other countries.⁴⁶

Two explanations for these international differences in income mobility appear particularly compelling. First, it seems plausible that high income inequality at a given time could cause a high intergenerational persistence of economic status. The United States and Great Britain have high income inequality coupled with low income mobility, whereas Scandinavian countries display the opposite pattern. Canada, however, casts doubt on this explanation, because it has relatively high income inequality coupled with high income mobility.

Second, given the limited ability of low-income parents to invest in their children's education, it is possible that progressive public policies toward education financing could explain why some countries have higher rates of economic mobility. Research shows that differences in education financing alone do not explain mobility differences between countries, but education financing is an important part of the explanation, together with other factors that differ between countries, such as the earnings return to education (how much another year of education increases one's earnings) and the heritability (either genetic or environmental) of income-predictive traits.^47"

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=35&articleid=85&sectionid=515

Jaded - You Lie!

The "only the wealthy pay taxes" argument is ONLY even arguable if you IGNORE all payroll taxes (which ONLY working people pay.)

jcj78 - Nothing makes the greedy pigs on these boards madder than someone who they think should be on "their side" ("grab all you can"; "what's good for me is good") who they discover still has feelings for the "little people".

They'll call you dirty names and tell you to go away, but frankly I find it amusing to run up their blood pressure (ergo, my screen name). Maybe when they have to pay a few American hospital bills they'll have to rejoin the "little people" and see how the other half lives.

Caricatures of the nouveau riche aren't very flattering, and there are plenty of them on these boards. Cheers!

You seem the embodiment of the person to help actualize the concept of Vince Flynn's Term Limits. Indulge yourself, as I see no hope other than establishing close communities of likeminded civil respectful people. Which your tone does not suggest, but then again, sometimes people need a John Wayne to assist Jimmy Stewart, a la, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Today Liberty Valance wears suits in boardrooms on Wall Street and roams the halls of Washington DC. The Bullies and their double standards need to stop. I surmise Blackwater Fallujah treatment will be seen within two years if things do not change in the USA. Sadly, I think there is a contingent of elite leaders who will relish this and institute Marshal Law while hiding behind their praetorian guard, but if you fancy yourself Marky Mark as "The Shooter" choose well. You’ll know it is on when as the Irish in “Braveheart”, switch allegiance to the Scots, to fight the English, the praetorian guard of the elitists do the same.

I do not besmirch the wealthy who have truly earned their way and contribute to the welfare of their common man but the manipulation of the institutionalized corruption has to stop. All this talk of transparency and change is disingenuous lip service to preserve and consolidate power.

"Allow me to control the issue of the nation's money and I care not who makes its laws!" - Mayer Rothschild

“If my sons did not want war, there would be none” – Gutle Schnapper Rothschild

“The few who understand the system will be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people are mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests” – Rothschild Bros of London to Sen. John Sherman and the brothers Rothschild to start a new Central Bank in America, June 1863.

"It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

"The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed.” - Balzac

“The form of law I propose would be as follows: In a State which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues—not faction, but rather distraction—there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for the both are productive of great evil…Now the legislator should determine what is to be the limit of poverty or of wealth.”: Plato (427-347 B.C.)

The greatest country, the richest country, is not that which has the most capitalists, monopolists, immense grabbings, vast fortunes, with its sad, sad soil of extreme, degrading, damning poverty, but the land in which there are the most homesteads, freeholds-where wealth does not show such contrasts high and low, where all men have enough-a modest living- and no man is made possessor beyond the sane and beautiful necessities.”: Walt Whitman (1819-1892)

“A State divided into a small number of rich and a large number of poor will always develop a government manipulated by the rich to protect the amenities represented by their property.”: Harold Laski (1930)

“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. “In War, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. “The same malignant aspect of republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war…and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No Nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”: James Madison, April 20, 1795

Old Cherokee saying explaining life through story of the two wolves: One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said,”My Son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is God. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.” The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf wins?” The Old Cherokee simply replied, “ The one you feed.”

Great observations, borod; well said. Interesting how quickly the public discussion here dissolved into political demagoguery. Seems any rational adult would read this and think, as did those performing the study, that the sociological implications are worrisome ("scary," to use their term). It's cold comfort that some of the elites ultimately come around, only after being specifically instructed to try to put themselves in someone else's shoes -- a moral imperative that most churches, parents, and schools teach every day. And if memory serves, there are even a few references to the same concept in the Bible.

"I have to do WHAT? And just how do you do that??"

It's much more difficult to look in the mirror and ask the inevitable question of oneself than it is to lash out, discredit the study, dismiss the results and disparage anyone who might find it interesting or deserving discussion.

I came across a bumper sticker the other day on the back of a shiny new, expensive, fully-rigged out pickup truck: "How's that Hopey-Changey thing working out for you?"

Pretty well, thanks! We've got your attention, now don't we?

Jaded, let's diffrentiate between which rish people we are talking about. I know some rich people that are paying their fair share and they are the newly rich. The ones that made it on their own.

I think what people need to realize is that there are a lot of newly rich people out there that are saying, "Hey I did it and I'm a normal joe, if I can do it, do can you."

Let's focus on the Old Rich. Those are the real bastards. They are the ones that finance the wars. They are the ones that are above prosecution. They also look down on the Newly Rich.

jcj (aka N. Nuts) wrote:

The American Farmer's Federation couldn't find A SINGLE FAMILY FARM LOST TO THE DEATH TAX. EVER. NOT ONE.

The death tax doesn't affect family farmers, or small businesses, because it has such a high exemption. I doubt that simple facts will stop you from repeating this same lie again and again though. Its GOP SOB SOP, and you're obviously a GOP SOB.

Actually you should do your own research rather that spew false information. I looked at the USDA ERS database using Google. I found that the average farm in the US is 430 acres and is valued at between $4400-5300 per acre. At the bottom number the average farm is worth about $1.9 million in land alone, simply stated does not include buildings or equipment. Since the Death Tax allows an exemption for the first $1,000,000 for a single person and $2M for couples and then taxes at a rate of 55% you quickly cause a lot of pain for the average farmer. To be really clear, a $2 million farm left to the only son would result in a tax bill of $550,000. I doubt the family farm has that much cash lying about.

One final point my DEM SOB friend, if the system is of no concern to you then why is Obama proposing a fix to increase the deduction to $3.5million and lower the rate to 35%? You have been weighed and measured and been shown to be wanting. Good day, Sir.

Sally, I hope you learn how to be impartial in the new year.

So please show me what I said that was "false information".

FYI, the average family farm isn't 430 acres, its less than 100 acres. Your figure is skewed because you included corporate farms.

My farm isn't 430 acres. I own two farms, one in TN, one in AL, they total less than 300 acres. FTR, I wouldn't take a million for the 125 acres that I live on, but its not worth that on the market.

Just so you know, I am for taxing rich farmers just like I am for taxing rich everyone.

Keep up the good work Sally.

The data I quoted was from the United States Department of Agriculture's Database available with a quick search, idiot. The average is right there quoted at 431 acres. I live in Iowa and the average farm is greater than 600 acres you moron. So you were caught spewing lies and then chose to just claim the facts are false. You really are stupid. See below the average is 431 acreas. Don't be afraid to get educated.

www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/us.htm

the data you quoted is not just for family farms, like I already pointed out.

See:

So please show me what I said that was "false information".

FYI, the average family farm isn't 430 acres, its less than 100 acres. Your figure is skewed because you included corporate farms.

My farm isn't 430 acres. I own two farms, one in TN, one in AL, they total less than 300 acres. FTR, I wouldn't take a million for the 125 acres that I live on, but its not worth that on the market.

Just so you know, I am for taxing rich farmers just like I am for taxing rich everyone.

Keep up the good work Sally.

Further exposing you as a liar, the data you quoted is pretty clear that even if you include ALL farms, they don't OWN 430 acres on average. They WORK that number of acres on average, including rented land, but actually own less than 320. The estate tax wouldn't apply to rented land.

Its ok, I don't expect you to know anything about farming just because you live in Iowa, where you're obviously very proud of the fact that you have a lot of BIG & CORPORATE CONTROLLED farms. I hope you enjoy those vast lagoons of hog manure that come along with them, right there in your own backyard one day.

This .pdf breaks it all down for you:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB12/EIB12c.pdf

So you were caught spewing lies about me spewing lies, and claiming as "facts" things that were just false, according to the very source you provided, claiming it supported your nonsense. I'd call you really stupid, too, but then that little kid who likes to pretend like a moderator "tyler" would ban me for having a bigger penis than he does.

Don't be afraid to get educated. Its free, just like your mom.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Apparently practicing your type of animal husbandry has resulted in you getting kicked in the head too many times. There is no discussing anything with a feepshucker. Data be damned. I asked 6 farmer friends how big their farms were here in Eastern Iowa (Linn and Iowa Counties) and all six are greater than 400 acres. The smallest is 420 and the largest is 885. Perhaps your baby family farms in the poor soil areas of your neck of the woods are all you know, but here in the upper midwest all farms are big. Iffen you want I can send you pictures of corn and bean fields to the horizon. And the soils is so deep, black and fertile, crops seem to jump out of the ground. But you would not know that my little friend.

BTW - My mom is dead. Merry Christmas Asshat. Died two months ago from cancer.

I asked 6 farmer friends how big their farms were here in Eastern Iowa (Linn and Iowa Counties) and all six are greater than 400 acres. The smallest is 420 and the largest is 885. Perhaps your baby family farms in the poor soil areas of your neck of the woods are all you know, but here in the upper midwest all farms are big. Iffen you want I can send you pictures of corn and bean fields to the horizon. And the soils is so deep, black and fertile, crops seem to jump out of the ground. But you would not know that my little friend.

LMAO. Data be damned indeed, now that it contradicts you.

Well, if six of your boyfriends told you they had bigger farms than 400 acres, then the USDA, who's data, cited by you in this very thread, must be wrong, huh?

I'm sure all that black dirt is great right now. The midwest is missing out on these record prices I sold my wheat for because that muck couldn't be planted this fall, it was too wet. I guess your boyfriends left that out while they were bragging about how great their Farmville scores were.

None of that has any bearing on the size of the average family farm, or more to the point, the median family farm. I am aware that arguing with a fascist who has no farming experience, and who has already been proven a liar is a waste of my time, but I find it entertaining, so please, try harder. Try again.

At least your mom doesn't have to see what a pathetic lackey you've become.

At least my Mom died proud of me for getting an education, being able to provide for my family and not wanting to blame those more fortunate for my standing in this society. You sicken me. Please keep poisoning the river delta with your chemicals, dreg.

BTW - I understand why you lash out assuming the worst in your fellow man, that is what people who are not happy with themselves do. It is ok to admit you are a loser, it is the first step to you working to change. I hope you get some self awareness and peace in the new year. And I hope your flooded bottom land yields profits next year.

Also, I own 831 acres...laughing my ass off!!

Probably had nothing to do with staying in school, not getting someone or getting pregnant before they could afford a child, not buying a house or car they couldn't afford, not spending their paycheck on cigarettes and booze. Maybe more people should focus on their own needs first in order to help others later.

1. Most of the rich are not trust fund babies and are not rich from inherited wealth -- they earned it.

2. Many of those folks have learned through experience that emoting doesn't get the job done and that, many times, people seek sympathetic treatment in order to not get the job done.

Actually the odds are overwhelming that the best decision that they ever made was to be born to rich parents. That's how the vast, vast, vast majority of them got rich, after all. I'm sure that won't stop you from licking their asses on the interwebs though, like a good doggie does. Again, this is mathematical fact, not something that you can argue with. I'll sit back and watch you turn red and spit now, like you asshats always do when the facts aren't on your side (and they never are).

There sure are a lot of lackeys in here. How does it feel to take food out of your own kids mouths and give it to Ivanka Trump? Do you get your ears scratched, and food put in your bowl, doggie? Do you love your master, even when he jerks that leash you put your kids on? I bet you do. Because you're just a good dog.

If it's a "mathematical fact" and not just your bias that the vast majority of the rich inherited their wealth, provide a link to the data. And you wonder why their not empathetic?

jcj78 may be outspoken, but he's right. The vast majority are NOT rich because of hard work, it is from LUCK - being born to rich parents. That is an indisputable FACT.

The myth of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is just that, a myth. Created by the rich to keep their money, maintained by the lied to, wishful masses who hope it's true.

If it's a "mathematical fact" and not just your bias that the vast majority of the rich inherited their wealth, provide a link to the data. And you wonder why their not empathetic?

You're right, I certainly can. Here you go, Curious George:

Several recent studies have punctured the conception, assiduously fostered by the media and political defenders of the profit system, that American capitalism makes possible the rapid acquisition of wealth for anyone motivated to work for it.

The truth is very different. A study by economist Tom Hertz of American University, “Understanding Mobility in America”, finds that a child born into a poor family, defined as the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, has an infinitesimal one-in-a-hundred chance of making it into the top five percent income level.

Hertz’s report, issued by the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP), studied both “intergenerational mobility” and “short-term mobility.” Intergenerational mobility, comparing an individual’s economic status with that of his or her parents, is taken as a measure of equality of opportunity, since economic success independent of the status of one’s family would seem to indicate that merit and work are the principal sources of material rewards.

As far as intergenerational mobility is concerned, it is not only the children of the poor in the US who have little chance of becoming wealthy. Children born in the middle quintile (the 40-60th percentile of incomes in the country, $42,000 to $54,300) also have only a 1.8 percent chance of reaching the top five percent, a likelihood not much higher than in poor families. These findings were based on a study of over 4,000 children whose parents’ income was determined in 1968 and whose own income was then reviewed as adults in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999.

Breaking the data down by race showed that, within the framework of increasing pressure on the working class as a whole, black families continue to face higher burdens. While 47 percent of poor families remain poor in subsequent generations, this figure is 32 percent for whites and 63 percent for blacks. Only 3 percent of African-Americans jump from the bottom quarter of the income distribution to the top 25 percent, while for whites this number, still small, is 14 percent.

The second feature of the study focuses on short-term mobility, which is a measure of annual income volatility. Large changes in annual income correlate with economic instability and insecurity.

On the subject of income volatility, the report’s findings also contradict the claim of equal opportunity and rewards for hard work. Those in the middle income levels—the majority of whom consist of both industrial and service sector workers who are commonly lumped together and labeled “middle class” based on their income level—experienced increased “insecurity of income” between 1997 and 2004, compared to 1990. Downward short-term mobility—an annual income decline of $20,000 or more—rose from 13.0 percent of the population in 1990 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 and 16.6 percent in 2003-04.

This downward mobility was concentrated among those earning between $34,500 and $89,300 a year, while those in the top 10 percent of income earners ($122,880 or more) saw less negative shocks during this same period. Moreover, the middle income household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04 than it was in 1990-91, although the early nineties was a period of recession and the more recent years were ones of officially strong economic growth.

Hertz’s findings parallel those contained in a number of similar recent studies. A report prepared by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon for the National Bureau of Economic Research in December 2005 shows that those in the top 10 percent income bracket received 49 percent of the growth in wages and salaries in the period between 1997 and 2001, while the bottom 50 percent received less than 13 percent.

Dew-Becker and Gordon explain that whereas in the past there was some modest improvement in real wages for the lower-paid as a result of productivity gains, that is no longer the case. While there was either decline or virtually no gain for the vast majority of working people, between 1996 and 2001 the earnings at the 90th percentile (10 percent from the top) increased 58 percent, those at the 99th percentile by 121 percent, the top tenth of one percentile by 236 percent, and the top one-hundredth of one percentile by 617 percent.

These statistics reflect the reality of a new gilded age, more extreme in terms of social inequality and concentration of wealth than that of a century ago.

Another paper published by the NBER in January 2006 shows that the polarization between the super-rich and the poor is returning to early 20th century levels. In the mid-20th century, partly in response to the explosive growth of trade unionism during the Great Depression as well as the threat of socialism embodied in the example of the Russian Revolution, reformist policies led to a rapid fall in the share of the top 0.01 percent of US earners of total income—from 4.5 percent in 1916 to “only” 0.5 percent in 1971. This latter figure was still 50 times what it would have been under conditions of complete income equality.

In the last three decades, however, this trend has been sharply reversed again. By 1998 the share of the top 0.01 percent had risen in little more than a quarter century as rapidly as it had fallen in the previous 50 years, reaching 3 percent of total income. A major component of this is compensation for top corporate executives. The ratio of the pay of CEOs to average wages rose from 27 in 1973 to 300 in 2000, and it has continued to climb since.

“Understanding Mobility in America” contains a number of other significant findings. It presents comparisons between US intergenerational mobility and existing trends in other advanced capitalist economies, especially in Europe. It finds that mobility is lower in the US than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among the major wealthy countries, only Britain has a lower rate of mobility than the US.

This is particularly noteworthy, given the incessant claims—repeated most recently in comments by various media pundits on the mass struggle of French students and youth against the government’s plans to attack the rights of young workers—that European workers and youth, by fighting to defend past social gains, are foolishly forfeiting the chance to strike it rich, a chance which is allegedly greater in the United States.

Even as American society has become more unequal and social mobility has declined, the myth of mobility maintains its strength. A recent survey in the New York Times showed that 80 percent of Americans polled believe it is possible for anyone to move from poverty to great wealth. The same question posed in 1983 produced an affirmative answer from less than 60 percent.

The extent of these illusions is no doubt overstated in polls that tend to register the most immediate impressions of individuals who repeat what they have heard endlessly on radio, television and the rest of the media. Moreover the ideological role of individualism in America, along with the influence of advertising and the media, is not new. Even so, the apparent disconnect between these conceptions of social mobility and a reality that moving in the opposite direction is significant.

The last few decades have seen the collapse of all varieties of national reformism, and in the absence of any genuine political alternative, many workers have become increasingly susceptible to this kind of outlook.

The gulf between the actual conditions of life and these illusions cannot continue to grow indefinitely, however, without producing a social explosion and creating the conditions for a new period of working class political struggle.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

Thanks for that brief explanation

Aww, was it more than you could handle, sweetie? Its easier just to chant "USA, number one!" right along with Sister Sarah, isn't it? Even if its not true, it makes you feel superior to someone (anyone). I told you it was dangerous for you to play with the big kids.

Just say something about class warfare and jealousy. That's all that your fascist buddies are gonna do anyway. Because like I've repeatedly pointed out, they can't really argue with math.

This attempts to answer the question in a backward, rather piecemeal fashion. You said that the vast majority of the rich got that way by having rich parents. The verification of that statement is the answer to the question how many whose families are currently in the top 5 centile started out there, not what your chances are of getting to the top 5 when you start out in the bottom 20.

Count up the rich people ( depending on what you consider rich) and find out just how they got their money. What about OH, I don't know, Bill Gates. Did he inherit? Steve Jobs, did he inherit? Warren Buffet? No, they were simply smarter and not afraid of hard work.

LMAO. Bill Gates dropped out of Princeton. How many poor kids do you know who drop out of Ivy League Schools?

Oh, awesome! You thought of 3 examples and two of them are semi-accurate! I can think of millions of examples (99% of poor people) that point in the opposite direction. You lose.

This attempts to answer the question in a backward, rather piecemeal fashion

My seven year old cur dog follwed the deductive reasoning. Was it giving you too much credit to assume that you could do the same?

I've known one who had a full ride and dropped out of Harvard, establishing only that it happens. With what frequency I don't know.

BTW, your dog could use some lessons in logic.

You tutor her in logic, she'll help you with remedial statistics.

Translation: you can't provide the data in question. Consult with the dog. Nuf said.

jcj78-2595262 - are you a psycho or just a complete dick? you remind me of holden caulfield, but you think everyone except you is a "lackey" instead of a phoney. seems like youre just as messed up as him too. get a life

Think back to your History lessons, and the lessons on the Roman Republic (later Empire). Now think on exactly why the Roman Republic (later Empire) failed. Here's a hint: It ain't because the poor folks were too lazy to work. No, it has far more to do with how the few had all the money, and the many had no money to help keep the Republic (later Empire) afloat.

Do y'all give up? Ok, think about the French Revolution and why it happened. Hey, with this huge clue it should be freakin' easy to figure out.

The rich are rich because they deserve it and the poor are poor because they deserve it. Just like the Caste system in India. Untouchables are Untouchables, not because their parents were Untouchables but because in a previous life they had bad karma and deserve to be on the bottom.

Please. Enough with this "Rich people earned it and therefore deserve to be rich" stuff. First of all, I'm not even going to argue that rich people don't deserve it. Let's just assume that they do. If rich people deserve their wealth that means that poor people deserve their poverty, otherwise they would be rich! This is exactly what people mean when they say that poor people are lazy and underachievers and that's why they are poor. When people say there is a fundamental difference between rich and poor - that the poor are less successful, not because of their circumstances, but because of some quality they are lacking - well THAT sounds like class warfare to me.

Allthumbs, "jcj78-2595262" ate your lunch - sad thing is though even with all the data that was provided for you - you really are a true believer of American Exceptionalism aren't you? This is the number one reason that this country is really going to hell in a hand basket. The simple truth of the matter is is that all people won't become rich in this country and the vast majority won't even have a comfortable living unless the environment of greed and selfishness doen't change and I mean for the better to have inclusion of everyone. Ol and by the way - I'm not lazy, I work for a living and I take care of my responsibilities - and I still find it hard to survive in the Good ol USA.

jcj78-2595262 - I think you make some good points in your previous statements and I am impressed with your providing a reference to back up your statistics. Further, what you are saying about the lower and middle classes deserves attention.

However, for the purpose of discussion (if the intent of your argument is to shed some light on a problem and find some reasonable conclusion) perhaps toning down the militant rhetoric is in order. The old adage is "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". I would be willing to bet you could find more people that would be willing to listen to what you have to say if you weren't so abusive when you said it. There aren't really very many people that respond well to being threatened with physical violence (even if they deserve it).

I'll give you credit for one thing for sure, you sure seem to be passionate about your cause (if that's what this is to you). Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, for all I know you could just be perpetuating a Flame War. What ever the case there are some good points to be made on both sides of the argument, but inciting violence towards others simply because they don't agree with your position only shuts down any potential for understanding on either side.

I happen to share some of your views and while I am by no means "rich", I do rather well for myself although, much as you statistics indicate, I find myself in the same "class" as my parents and their parents . My point is that there are those of us out there that share your position, but in order for others to be open to listening the conversation must be had in a civil manner on both sides.

thanks for taking time to read it, thanks for the input.

I do believe in the cause, but I don't believe any length of discussion will sort it out. It is my belief that what we are seeing is what happens inevitibly in a capitialist system: It will reduce itself to a two class, ultra-minority-ruled oligarchy which ushers its own collapse. I don't relish this, but I believe that it is inevitible. I think the blood letting would be less if more people saw it coming, but I think its gonna be pretty bloody no matter what. Sometimes I hope it hurries, and goes down while I can still walk hard all day and shoot straight. Sometimes I hope that for my kids. I do think it WILL happen, present trends demand it.

It is my belief that what we are seeing is what happens inevitably in a capitalist system: ...

I concur 100%. An earlier reference to the Roman Republic's downfall (and other capitalist societies) is absolutely spot on. I have used that exact reference (specifically what happened to Rome and the reasons for it following the assassination of Julius Gaius Caesar) in conversations past to analogize the current climate here in the United States. Some people just don't get it and perhaps, as the article suggests,... it is because they are simply incapable of it.

Who knows... maybe that's what this big "cataclysm" of 2012 is going to be... A Global financial melt down or global equalization of classes. It is a global system after all, not just an American one.

Where's my guillotine?

I've been telling peeps for years that I thought the guillotine business was the one to go into. I see the demand for them rising exponentially in the coming years. Steel is high, lumber isn't the cheapest its been, but if you had a large stock on hand when the demand started up, I think you'd have the market cornered.

I don't have enough time to do it, I farm full time. I do have a large stock of 16" cut-off blades that are too worn out to put back on sod harvesters. Make somebody a deal on em if you want to kick off a guillotine start-up. Hope that don't get me banned for ads, LOL.

Scotsman - I think if you re-read the entire thread here you'll have to agree that jcj78 has borne the brunt of many ad hominem and often vicious, ugly attacks on his business, family, politics, manhood, mental capacity, and more just for expressing his opinions. Strident opinions, perhaps; but out of line? Hardly.

One of the most perplexing anomalies in our country is the propensity of people to vote for candidates who are wholly out of line with the voters' own economic circumstances and needs, i.e., the republican south in some of the poorest areas of the country. Jcj78 doesn't fit that mold (obviously), and from the looks of this thread, that's a serious threat to many people.

I wonder, what are his critics so worried about? Seems he's merely exercising the very rights conservatives so loudly claim as their own -- self-determination, freedom of expression, gun ownership, freedom from interference, independent thought.

Then again, maybe it's not just money that makes some people insensitive and uncaring and effete . . .

Actually, the report didn't say that upper level people are more likely to not understand what someone else is thinking/saying. It said that those upper level people who had worked their way up, people such as yourself, could understand others just as well as those of us on the bottom rungs, simply because they themselves have been there, and learned to read others. That lack of compassion described in the article applied only to those born with the proverbial "silver spoon" in their mouths.

That's wonderful, Eugene -- but have those professional degrees made you fabulously, ecstatically wealthy (millions of dollars wealthy)? I didn't think so.

Just curious, Eugene, but what PERCENTAGE of your TOTAL income do you pay in taxes? I pay 25-30%, and my TOTAL income is less than $20,000 a year.

Warren Buffett doesn't even hire an accountant to reduce his tax bill - but his effective tax rate is STILL only 17.7% while his secretary's is 32.9%.

Did you read his op-ed piece in the NY Times on November 17?

Or happen to read Buffett's challenge to the Forbes 400 back in 2007? You know, the one where he said he'd give any one of them $1 million for their favorite charity if they could show their effective tax rate was higher than their secretary's???? (To date, not ONE of them has claimed that $1 million.)

Tom: You've talked about in your office, for example, you pay a much lower tax rate with all of your wealth than, say, a receptionist does.

Warren: That's exactly right, Tom. And I think the only way to do it is with specifics, and in our office, 15 people cooperated in a survey out of 18. I didn't make anybody do it. And my total taxes paid-- payroll taxes plus income tax-- and the payroll tax is an income tax. It's based on income.

Tom: Yeah.

Warren: Mine came to-- 17.7 percent. That was line 61 I think-- or, no, line 43-- is the percent of taxable income, plus payroll taxes, 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn't anybody in the office from the receptionist on that paid as low a tax rate. And I have no tax planning. I don't have an accountant. I don't have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do.

Tom: Why do you think that there's not more outrage about that?

Warren: I don't think people understand it. For one thing, you'll see a lot of surveys that say the rich, the top one percent pay this much of the income tax. Now I think what people don't realize is that almost one third of the entire budget comes from payroll taxes. And payroll taxes on income, just like income taxes are taxes on income.

And the payroll tax is over $800 billion out of two and a trillion, or something like that. And people don't understand-- that the rich pay practically no payroll tax. I mean, I paid payroll tax last year on $90 odd thousand, whatever the number is. I paid income tax on $66 million. But my double income tax, one of 'em quits at $90,000. And the remaining $66 million does not get taxed with payroll tax. So, the person who makes $60,000 in our office gets taxed in full on the payroll tax, and taxed in full on the income tax. And all the statistics you read, particularly the one don't like taxes, well now, they totally ignore the payroll tax. And it's huge now.

Those screaming that the rich pay most taxes ignore the fact they don't pay pay Social Security or Medicare taxes on ANY unearned income (capital gains, dividends, etc.) They don't pay those taxes on earned income over $106,800, either. And they get all kinds of deductions that us working stiffs can't take off our taxes.

But they don't want to talk about that. Or the fact that over 60% of American corporations pay NO TAX, either. Why do people buy this BS?? Talk about class warfare.

yeah master,

right away just don't sell my children

since you the devil are bent on evil to kill maim and destroy

I believe you hit the nail on the head. I can easily tell because of all of the (jokes) I receive in my in box that your statements are true. I also believe that many of the upper class believe more who benefit from our unemployment and social welfare system should have to do something to give back instead of just collecting. Not really unrealistic.

They change only if you only now started thinking about someone else. IF all "rich" people are so bad then why do they give so much money to charities? Why do they donate money to disaster relief?

Mary P- They change only if you only now started thinking about someone else. IF all "rich" people are so bad then why do they give so much money to charities? Why do they donate money to disaster relief?

why do you kiss their ass?

I have a very wealthy friend I couldn't speak to for several years when her husband founded a law firm that was wildly successful. The minute she became wealthy, she couldn't understand why people who couldn't "chopper into Telluride" to meet them to go skiing" didn't "just earn more money." Two decades and a couple of life experiences later we're very close again - but certainly, perspective can take a flyer when money is no longer a concern.

mary p, if the super-rich would give more than a token hundred thousand or two, there would be no need for charities. Think about it: Poor people are FAR more likely to donate half of their TOTAL financial wealth than any super-rich fat-cat.

Now remember it's the super-rich fat-cat that is in a far better position to afford donating half their TOTAL financial wealth -- not the poor folks.

IF all "rich" people are so bad then why do they give so much money to charities? Why do they donate money to disaster relief?

Because it's good PR for them to do so. They get to blow their own trumpet and say "hey, look what I'm doing, aren't I wonderful?"

Actually, studies have been done that show that people of lesser incomes actually give the more than "wealthy" people and people of lesser incomes are more generous over all. I can't remember the exact article that cited the study off the top of my head, but I will try to find it in a bit and post the link.

A single large donation by a few wealthy individuals pales in comparison to thousands of small donations by poorer ones. Further, having worked in the "hospitality" industry as a bartender (to pay my own way through college by the way) I can personally attest to the fact that wealthier people much less generous over all compared to their poorer counterparts. This coming from experience bar-tending both in a "hole in the wall" bar frequented by lower and middle class patrons and experience working as a bartender in a private country club which boasted some of the wealthiest families in my city and the surrounding area.

Lastly, I can also attest that the intent of "charitable donations" by some wealthy individuals is purely tax motivated, and generally occurs towards the end of the year just before tax filing season begins and the tax year concludes.

Don Blankenship of Massey Energy was well-known for his charity. He built a ball park in the town and donated whenever it would get his name in the paper. Is it because he's a wonderful, caring human being? (Might want to ask the families of those 29 dead miners that question.) Or because it got him mileage with the state regulators he played golf with at the country club?

mary p, I'd like to know your definition of charity. My definition would certainly include extended health care and benefits for the 9/11 first responders who survived the attacks and their aftermath -- but apparently that definition isn't shared by the Senate Republicans who, to a person, voted against funding that program.

And this from a political party that has wrapped itself in the American flag, politicized the 9/11 events like no other, offers up 9/11 at the slightest provocation as the sole, sufficient and unassailable justification for whatever it wants to accomplish?

As the saying goes, charity begins at home. With that group, we'd all be left to steal bread and sleep under bridges; right now, the surviving first-responders are facing that prospect. Inexcusable.

And along that same line of thought let's all keep in mind, as Jon Stewart noted, that every soldier serving in Afghanistan and Iraq is a second- and third-responder to 9/11. Or so we've been told.

LKNRaging

"As the saying goes, charity begins at home."

Do you even know what that aphorism means? It means take care of yourself so nobody else has to.

And yet those who are the wealthiest 10% of U.S. Citizens CLAIM to be "Christian"...................

Man, speak the truth for real - "WWJD" LOL

But of course Jesus would be rich if he were truly worthy.

Sadly enough, there are plenty of those as well. My mother saw them all the time when she used to work at the DSS office.

NPW, math is not your forte, is it? Saying that someone is in the top 1% refers simply to the fact that their income is higher than 99% of others. That, however, is a completely different issue from the percentage of total wealth held by that 1%. To understand your mistake, imagine the following society consisting of 100 people:

Total income in society: $100

Richy Rich's income: $ 99.01;

Everyone else's income: 1 cent per person.

Note that Richy Rich is in the top 1% of earners in our fictional society. By your absurd math, Richy Rich should pay only 1% of the total taxes in that society. Is THAT fair? Of course not. Perhaps if conservatives were willing to spend more money on education, your math skills would be better.

The top 2% control 85% of the wealth in this country. That means that they should be paying at least 85% of the taxes. That would be the very BOTTOM of fair.

That makes no sense. If someone is making more money, they will pay more income tax. Period. Percentages have nothing to do with it.

10 people making $20,000/year will pay no taxes.

1 person making $200,000/year will pay taxes.

In that scenario, less than 10% of the group will pay 100% of the taxes.

Again, people making more money will pay more taxes.

Warren Buffet admitted he pays an effective tax rate (after deductions) less than his secretary, and those posting in favor of the rich are seeing the bigger issue. In a third world country the money pools at the top because it does not get redistributed resulting in just the rich and poor with no middle class. If the rich (including Corporations) in the US keep pooling money without allowing it to redistribute then the government should step in to keep the middle class from falling by raising taxes on the rich and/or closing their deductions. The I got mine and I don't care if you get some mentality will ruin this country.

The top 50% pay ALL of the income taxes.

The top 2% control 85% of the wealth.

There are WAY more taxes than just income taxes. The poor pay a lot of tax in other ways.

NPW, it ain't about "dollar amounts" -- it's about PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INCOME. I pay 25-30% of my TOTAL income in taxes -- yet the top 1% of wealthiest U.S. Citizens is able to skate by with paying less than 15% of their TOTAL income. Is it just because they "happen" to be rich -- or because they are greedy muthafreakin' pigs who just cannot do as they DEMAND the rest of us do: "Tighten the belt and make do with less and less"?

mary p
The top 50% pay ALL of the income taxes.

Really? Then there shouldn't be a Federal Deficit at all, if the "top 50%" is paying ALL the taxes.

I am not sure why we do not adopt a flat tax system like some countries have done. It is fair and equitable. First 45k income is tax free, then every dollar after that is taxed at 17%. For the mathmatically impaired here is an example, 45k=0 tax, 55k=1,700 tax, 100k=11k tax. This would apply to capital gains as well therefore ending the situation where the warren buffets of the world have a lower tax rate. Capital gains is part of the issue, if you have millions and make your money via capital gains you pay a 15% rate where my income tax rate is at 30%.

However one rigs the equations, the fact remains that there is a HUGE income disparity in this society. This is not to say that the wealthy have not earned their money in legitimate ways, because the vast majority of them have. And certainly, few people begrudge someone for being innovative, ambitious and successful.

But the problem here is that the pendulum has gone too far, and now the middle class, whom have always carried the economic strength of our nation, are slowly losing their wealth to the top earners. In essence, we have allowed our country to foster a new form of oligarchy. THAT is what we should all be concerned about.

MGinRochester: Actually, I consider Math on of my strengths.

The Point I am making is that the high income earners, whether they find ways to reduce some of their tax debt or not, carry the burden of financing the govt. to a much greater extent than the rest of us. Society almost vilifies the rich. Most people are very quick to say make them pay more tax, tax their healthcare etc. While there may be high income people who got there by less than ethical means, there are many who worked their asses off, took personal risks etc. to get to where they are. While their peers were at picnics and football games, they were burning the midnight oil. Don't envy their socio-economic elevation.

Yes, I do understand that if RR's tax liability was decreased to be the same as "an average person", the "average person" would have to pay a lot more to make up for it.

Think of it this way, if you pay for an economy class plane ticket, you know what to expect. If you pay for a first class plane ticket, you know what to expect and you will expect a lot more.

So, by the same token, in a fair society, what should RR get for paying a lot more taxes than others?

NPW, I'm not against someone getting rich. The chance to accumulate a lot of wealth is a powerful motivator for innovation and it's one of the reasons that our country has traditionally been a prosperous one.

However -- there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive to allow too much wealth to be held by too small a portion of the population. However lavish one's lifestyle may be, there is a limit to what any one family is going to buy. (Just how many TVs does Bill Gates need in his home?) It's just a fact of economics: if you take a million dollars and distribute it evenly among 1000 middle class families, this will result in a LOT more economic activity than taking that same million bucks and giving to Bill Gates. Why? Think about the TVs again: those thousand middle class families are going to buy at least 1000 TVs, and likely more than that. Is Bill Gates going to have even 100 TVs in his house? Probably not.

No matter how you slice it, distributing wealth among a large number of people will result in more economic activity than giving huge amounts of money to a very few -- simply because a large number of people will always have more needs than a small number of people. A wise public policy, then, will strike a reasonable balance between the need to encourage innovation by allowing people to get rich and the need to make sure the gap between rich and poor does not grow to the point where economic activity is stifled. Ever since Reagan took office, the gap between rich and poor has steadily grown, to the point where the average guy on the street is seriously cutting back simply because he can't afford to buy as much. That hurts businesses and costs jobs.

But what about fairness? Is it fair to make the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes? Yes it is when you consider that -- to get rich in the first place -- the wealthy had to make greater use of all of the things that tax dollars pay for. If you start a department store and it expands to become a huge nationwide chain, you'll get VERY rich (and you should). However, think about what that entails? Thousands of delivery trucks traveling on taxpayer-funded roads, hundreds of calls to taxpayer-funded police departments to deal with shoplifters, MANY legal cases that must make use of our taxpayer funded court system, etc.

In other words, to that billionaire that made his money by starting a department store that went on to become a megacorporation, congratulations. I'm happy that your innovation and business genius has made you rich. But don't forget that your wealth has come, in part, through VERY heavy use of a large variety of taxpayer funded things. You should pay higher taxes than I do for that reason.

I completely agree! Jesus has as much or more to say about (and against) the rich than about anything else! Yet his most outspoken followers today preach a trickle down economics, "the poor are just lazy" philosophy. It makes me sick.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." You don't hear fundamentalist Christians quoting that one much do you?...

i agree too. it appears that the right wing preach to get rich, and yet have no simpathy for the gays. yet it was their parents that made them rich.

You're kidding right? It's just a ruse, eh? Money, and making more is the motivation for everything that is going on in this country. It takes money to get in office and stay there. And who's got the money to give out to put politicians in office? And who do you think politicians have to listen to once their office has been bought?

So you probably believe that the republicans are really just trying to get millionaires their tax cuts because it will help the economy? Right...

Right, the most important thing in the U.S. is "creating jobs". But who do you think controls the creation of all those jobs you right-wingers keep yammering on about? Here's a clue: It ain't the people who are now unemployed, and it ain't the Government. Still need another clue?

Who is it that keeps sending jobs to other countries like India, or "down-sizing" so the CEO can have an even bigger bonus? Again, it ain't the folks who are now unemployed, and it ain't the Government.

Just to clarify, the small business owners are the ones who create over 60% of the new jobs being acquired, and we're not talking about minimum slave wages like one would see at Wal-mart.

I noticed that you didn't say a thing about the GREEDY ass banks who really did get a bailout and not a loan like the auto industry. The banks should have fail "that would have been the market practicing true CAPITALISM" aawwwwhhh good ol Capitalism not saving the banks total Socialism from the anti Socialist Conservative Republicans. What a joke.......