Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: So just how does the "Middle Class" provide jobs?

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 30, 2012, 12:07 p.m. EST by SteveKJR1 (8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Obama continually talks about the "Middle Class" and says nothing about small businesses being able to become successful. So the question I have is how does the "Middle Class" provide jobs.

They aren't the ones start up businesses because it takes thousands of dollars to do that. So what to they have to offer other then their job skills.

I guess Obama thinks the Middle Class will make the economly grow, but it takes "businesses" to pay these people a "middle class wage" and he condems them for being wealthy.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

The Middle Class BUYS the shit big corporations and small businesses sell and make - therefore cutting our pay and jobs undercuts your own damn market...? (dumb-ass) They are the consumer base. (And American Middle Class is the largest in the world. - So goes the American Middle Class - so goes the world economy and your business). Shoot them, shoot yourself in the foot. An investment in the Middle Class is an investment in yourself - so go ahead give your secretary a raise today and bring her out of the Poor Class. I hear woman enjoy shopping - so collectively that's a big investment (better than advertising money spent) or you could keep suppressing their wages while all these savvy ladies reel in their spending (and their husband's spending) while rolling their eyes at commercials and resenting corporate America more and more and teaching their kids to do the same. (make that would teach them if they could afford to have kids) Kids another large consumer market...you'd think you'd want people to have more of those.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

So tell me when you say "invest in the middle class" just what do you mean? Do you think the "middle class" are "business owners"? If you do I have news for you - you are worng.

The middle class consists of people who have college degrees and work for businesses and coroporations.

Tell me how does the "middle class" become "middle class"?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

You missed the point - The middle class generally are not business owners and their numbers are shrinking rapidly. So because the people that employ them do not identify and view themselves as some sort of weird philanthropists whose employees should be grateful for what they can get with their ability to survive (rather than as people who work hard to help run the company and make it successful)... they have begun to justify cutting their pay and downsizing them out of existence viewing them as liabilities rather than assets or investments. Short term this increases the businessman's profit over the long haul what you've done collectively is wipe your entire consumer base and buying market out of existence thereby killing the entire economy. If you think about the fact that your employees are an asset rather than a liability and pay them more (across the entire economic board)... ultimately in the long run the economy will boom and your business will thrive and do even better rather than file bankruptcy.) The sad part about this is the decline of the Middle Class (the businessman's consumer base) has killed the economy and in this instance the employee dipped into their own pocket to bail out the businessman who killed the economy to begin with by attacking the Middle Class employee. Pay it forward will bring it's own rewards (financially and morally) win-win for Wall Street / Main Street and America on the whole. Instead I look at the advertising money being spent in the billions each year (but I have to tell you no matter how many commercials I see or despite my desire to purchase something - if I don't have the money... I'm not buying it.) Invest those billions in employees instead of advertising and watch boom time begin again.

ps - without a consumer market (um the middle class) you don't have a business - their ability to buy things creates jobs and your ability to even do business - just in case you needed it spelled out on why the middle class are in fact job creators

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

"There can be Only One!" Merger Mania...

Good Post. The small business is the heart of the US Economy. These are middle class folks. The definition of Small Business needs a ground swell to change it. There are defense contractors who have $100 M in capitalization with less than 100 employees who are considered small business. I think there are some fortune 500 companies that are considered small businesses...

I have some expereice with goverment contracts... the government has a small business program to help put contracts into the hands of small guys. Buts seems that many corporations qualifiy. There are also Miniority owned companies, and women owned companies that are special groups.

The point is I have written about small businesses are their primo position in US economy before. Small businesses are the heart of USA.

Domestic Policy should encorage and support small business creation. As opposed to Walmart Creation ...which it does and which it subsidized to $2 B. It is not fair to help build warehouses for Walmart or to help build walmart parking lots. Public Private partnerships drive out mom & pop businesses...

Corporate Welfare rapes Small Business and the middle class. Simple and clear. Public Private Partnerships, Federal Subsidies, Tax Abatements, State Tax Abatements for up to 10-20 years, ....Tax credits or loopholes or writeoffs, ..... Off shore Headquarters for corporations could be small businesses(?), Off Shore Production could be small business(?) All could be destroying US Small Businesses.

Domestic Policy should encorage and support small business creation. I posted some ideas ...you can see on my profile. My high school buddy started a small business and did well on the first try making $100K a year I guess.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Middle class creates jobs by supplying a consumer base. The issues with the economy is made worse since we can't afford to buy the products and services available. Multi national corps kill jobs by driving out competition then paying wages that decrease the buying power of the employees. Hell, the time of America's greatest prosperity the tax rate on the wealthy was 70% or higher.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Where do jobs originate from?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

The demand created by consumers. I think you want me to say the businesses but without consumers who can afford their services they would not be able to sell their product and would go out of business.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

You are wrong - there first has to be a product for the consumer to purchase. Products don't come out of thin air.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Products generally come out due to a demand perceived by the company. Supply and Demand is basic economic principal. They are dependent upon each other. If company A doesn'tmeet the demand then another company will. On the other hand if there is no demand the jobs created by the company will vanish once the company goes bankrupt.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 7 years ago

Watch this 5 minute video. The speaker, btw, is a millionaire "job provider" member. Since you strongly defend that class, I thought you ought to hear this from someone you might be inclined to "worship".

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

We Have a Consumer Based Economy


That is how the middle class drives the economy. They are the bulk of consumers.

Part of the problem is the 1% have a created an atmosphere where they make it near impossible for the middle class to start their own business.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

You are right - we have a consumer based economy - and you are correct that the "middle class" drives the economy. Just where does the middle class get their money to spend from - the government?

What I have seen in the past few years is that the younger generation could give a shit less about this country and want everything for themselves without having to work for it.

They haven't a clue as to what it takes to be successful because they were never taught. All they have been taught is what their mothers taught them.

There were no men in their household to teach them how to be "manly" but instead they look at things similar to that of a woman and pout when they don't get their ways.

This country is screwed plain and simple - look at the posts on this board and that will give you an example of the direction these people want to take it.

It's pathetic -no balls and no desire nor wants to learn how to succede - just take from those who are successful.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

Sexist Much (noone called you on that huh? Stuck in a dead marriage Steve (or perhaps a messy divorce). The middle class would get their money from banks if the bank would lend to them, which they won't unless they were born with capital as collateral via rich parents which means they're not middle class, their silver spoons with a pet project. I want none of your success which you view as money and stuff, you know what I want? Time. But I can't have it because I have to work so many hours on so little pay to afford things like food and housing. My pay doesn't match inflation or the prices of monopoly set commodities. It's almost like every corporation I write a check to knows the exact limits of my wallet and they collectively set prices to force me to meet it. Every time I'm almost breaking even, they strike again. Or TAXES go up on me...I'm not buying extras not even shoes (I'm wearing stuff with holes in it) and I'm a woman - I'm not pouting about that - I'm pointing out the cause of that. Since more than 50 percent of American's make less than $26,000 a year, and census data is available and one percent sets the price on the goods the middle class buys as well as on what they are paid... seems to me like they are the ones painting us into a corner. Not the other way around. Get rid of them all so regular Americans can get bank lending again. With Corporations as big as they are ( no surprise - the banks don't need us) - well unless it's for a bail out apparently. Give me some backing (I'm capable of creating success) This working on a treadmill to nowhere part of the rat race and the idea that you can get there from a maze with no exit hole; That fallacy has been exposed.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

So tell us oh wise one - how many small business people do you know and have talked to about how they started their business.

You don't have a clue about businesses and it's apparent that you don't know how to be successful based on your statement about "having to work so many hours on so little pay.

Maybe you should talk to small businesses people to so you can learn how to be successful so you will stop complaining about your taxes going up or breaking even.

I can now see why you are "just breaking even" when it comes to your income - you don't know how to make yourself successful.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

when?- back in the 70's when you did, oh old one? Different times now wouldn't you say... Oh where, oh where is my business mentor (who began under a different set of economic circumstances.) Please arise from your yacht and teach me all I need to be like you even as you scoff at me in disdain - except wait - my view of success completely differs from yours (I don't want a yacht...nor riches) I'm a simple person - I'd just like some Time - something they don't have either. Unless they rent property or trade stocks (and there again - I've never been one to step on others to get ahead) - different value system ya know? Aside from which ALL the SMALL business owners I know (surprisingly a lot) are S-T-R-U-G-G-L-I-N-G

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Well if you don't want a yacht and riches why should it be a problem for you when others want them? Seems to me you want to take away all wealth from successful people.

You just made my point - a person who is not successful always wants what successful people have -never happy with what you have and always know what to do with the wealth of what others have.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

Rich people have the most influence on politicians and what they will do with our tax money - so you mean that people can only be able to determine what working class people will do with their money, and leave the rich out of the equation?

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 7 years ago

agreed the biggest obstacle to a small business is taking a leap of faith and risking everything to create a small business, once you do that, you put your heart and soul into the business you end up working far more hours then you would working for a company and putting every dollar earned back into the business to push to grow more. by the time you reach the point of hiring other people you find that you want to keep as much of that hard earned money to yourself as possible so you end up paying market rates for employment. That's of course if you get that far.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

This site isn't really about personal success, there are plenty of other forums for that. This one is about ending the crime spree carried out by Wall Street and the Global financial oligarchy. That can't be accomplished through personal success, but only through collective effort, something akin to the original American revolution, but without the bullets.

If the system were to be set right again, that is, giving the boot to free trade/globalization, and replacing it with the economic system that once made us great and powerful, the American system of economics:


than we could have factory workers, once again, who could earn $50k a year with a high school education, and accumulate the capital necessary to start their own businesses, as subcontractors, etc.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

yes but he doesn't have the perspective to understand that (he doesn't believe and probably doesn't even realize what is happening.) To him success is there if you reach for it, but even his view of success is different from yours. To him Wall Street is success. Global Oligarchy is success - how do you widen the view/ clean the lens so he can see what we see?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Perhaps you could cast a magic spell on him, elf?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

so you're saying don't engage? I guess but isn't the point of a movement to explain your stance and widen others perspective? I'm also trying to understand how people could not be on board when it seems so clear eventually wealthy or not you can only exist in an economic bubble for so long. Most people who oppose it actually aren't all that wealthy, and when the economy bursts they'll be part of this. They assume we just want to tax them into oblivion to pay for welfare programs.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Well, I have to disagree with you because if what you say is true when it comes to "ending crime sprees carried out by wall street and global financial oligarchy" then why aren't you going to where the problem is - Washington DC not the wealthy.

They are only following the laws of the land and if you don't think they are then you along with others have the freedom to take them to court to prove otherwise.

[-] 2 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 7 years ago

wall st. writes the "law of the land"

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Wall street is only an instrument that has the ability to buy politicians and that can be stopped by letting the politicans know if they continue down that road they will be voted out - how hard is that to understand.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

Washington DC and megalopolies have mergered - DC is the wealthy....bwha haa haaa hhaa - look up average net worth of Congress and prior careers of most Congress People and what companies they workeed for and get back to me. When a corporation invests a billion dollars into a campaign it's also likely that they are the ones that came up with the candidate to begin with. Also Steve you are safe - when I talk wealth I'm talking the kind of wealth that can influence a politician or political policy. Do you have that much? Also - you think I shouldn't tell a rich person what to do with their money, while they are all busy telling and deciding what the taxpayers should do with theirs. Admit it you can do more with money than not. Rich people therefore are the ones influencing our politicians and what they will do with our tax money - so you mean that people can only be able to determine what working class people do with their money, and leave the rich out of the equation?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

Considering wealth buys influence and you can do a lot more with money than not, then it is it not the rich who influence and set our financial policies/ oligarchy? We need a separation of corporation and state implemented into the constitution, there is no current separation. Especially in order to get elected you need billions of dollars, who's your constituency then? The system is already so corrupt- I don't even know how you'd begin to do this. And yes we definitely need laws to make this corruption illegal - problem is your not going to get politicians who represent corporations to make laws against them.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Wall Street of today, is a remnant of past empires. It does what empires always do, which is to colonize a nation by buying out their governments. There are definitely problems in Washington DC, but those problems have been created by financial interests.

The solution is to get those financial interests out of the government. The first step, passing Glass Steagall, would bankrupt most of the worst offenders. That would be a big step towards setting things right.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

The way for the middle class to provide jobs would have been to vote for a candidate who supports Glass Steagall, the replacement of the Federal Reserve with a national bank, which would then provide the money for economic development projects, such as NAWAPA, the North American Water and Power Authority, which would provide tens of millions of jobs, while upgrading our water and energy infrastructure.

Unfortunately, Obama does not appear to have been that candidate, as certainly, neither was Romney.

The basic elements of the process outlined above is what was used to create jobs during the last economic crisis of this magnitude, the great depression.

[-] 2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

It's not the governments job to provide jobs. It's the governments job to "regulate intersatat commerece". And if the goverment is not doing a good job in doing that then it is the government that needs to be taken to the "wood shed" not business. Business only follow laws and regulations and if the government is "generous" in giving businesses tax breaks, then it is the government that needs to be fixed.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

The governments job is to "promote the general welfare", what could be a greater benefit to the general welfare than full employment and a great economy?

Corporations cannot and will not promote the general welfare. Their job is to promote the "private welfare" that is, their stock holders. Why not let the government do what it is intended to do, and let corporations do what they are intended to do?

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Do you know what the term "promote the general welfare" means with regard to the constitution. Do a search on it and then get back to me - you will be surprised as to what it "really means".

It sure doesn mean "full employment and a great economy", that's for sure.

If you say that corporations cannot and will not promote the general welfare then how about we shut them down and lets see how the "general welfare" will do?.

If you haven't ralized corporations pay billions in taxes to state and federal governments - lets cut those funds out and see how well people do.

Lets see if the government has enough funds to survive when those corporations and businesses are shut down. Lets see if the middle class will survive if we shut corporations and businesses down.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Considering the amount of often conflicting information out there about what "promote the general welfare" means, why don't you enlighten us and state your personal opinion?

To say that corporations do not promote the general welfare is not a suggestion to shut them down, but rather to let them do what they are intended to do, which is to promote the private welfare. This may benefit employees and customers at the same time, but that is not the purpose that they were established for.

If a corporation makes profits in a country, of course it has to pay taxes in exchange for what it receives from the state, such as use of public facilities, public education for employees, etc. That is a fair exchange, not philanthropy.

When a corporation pays its taxes, which I do as well, the government than should use that money to promote the general welfare. Since the government receives so much money from both individuals and corporations, it can attain an economy of scale when investing for the public good.

Lets see how corporations do when roads, power plants and schools and universities are shut down. This in fact may start happening soon, as part of a generalized breakdown crisis, resulting from the government's failure to promote the general welfare.

They key is for government and business to work together in harmony.

[-] 2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Well, the taxes that a corporation pays to the state government are for the services rendered by that government be it roads, safety or other expenditures the state government has. The corporation has no say in how those funds are disbursed.

Now, depending on the intent of the government it determines where the money is to be spent - however, those funds are limited and based upon taxes received by businesses and working class people and of course federal funds - but not always.

Will taxing businesses at 100% solve the states monitary problems - no. Some states are required to have a balanced budget and others are not.

That means that the states with a balanced budget are required to operate within the amount of the budget whereas other states that don't have a balanced budget can spend more then they have coming in and create a deficite - like the federal government.

So, taxing more does not solve the problem - cutting back on government spending does.

[-] 2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

With regard to the term "health and welfare" of the country - that term was used in reference to the states not in reference to the people.

Here are two links that you can read regarding this issue - it is quite detailed.



[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Why would a Republican form of government, that is, as was described in Plato's Republic, have any other intention than of representing the interests of all the people?

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

What you don't understand is that is't not Republicans nor Democrats nor is it the job of the government that determine a persons success - it's the person themselves.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

So, a person individually, living separate from government and society can determine a greater degree of success for himself, living in the wilderness somewhere without the benefits of collective enterprise? I don't see what sense that makes.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

I can say yes to your comment - if a person has the capability and skills to live and survive in the wilderness he can. Alsaka is a prime example of that - there are lots of people who live off the land and survive without the need for "social benefits".

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Yes, a person can live like that, but for most people it is not an optimal life.



[-] -1 points by janus2 (-387) 7 years ago

you're correct, its personal responsibility,but dems need low info people for their power base.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

You are right - however that needs to change - people need to change the way they think when it comes to thinking it's the governments responsibility to provide for them.

I commented on another web site about this very same thing.

Why do people think it its the responsibility of the government to provide support for two uneducated people ( husband/wife) who have 4 children and can pay the bills without support.

People think putting more money in the education system will solve the problem. It's not the schools job to solve the "education problem" it starts at home - and when you have 4 children without a father to take care of them who is out knocking up more women how is putting more money in schools going to solve the school drop out rate.

What needs to happen is school children need to be taught to be successful instead of being taught to be dependent.

They need to be taught to have goals in order for them to succede.

They need to understand that wealth comes in time - it's not instant gratification.

People spending thousands of dollars on electronic devices instead of saving isn't going to work and just make them government dependent.

Learning what it takes to be successful along with wanting to be successful will turn this country around.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Why even have a school? Its not the government's responsibility to provide education. Let the people provide education for their own children. Why have public transportation systems and other public utilities? This just makes people dependent on the government.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

You missed the point completely - It's in the home where learning begins - not in the schools. The schools responsibility is to provide education not life skills.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

I agree, but I don't think many people here would argue with you about that.

The point I am trying to make is that the economy as a whole mostly is not developed by the sum of the individual efforts of individuals, but that its best accomplished by collective effort.

When large groups of people put their money together than can attain an economy of scale that people cannot accomplish by themselves.

[-] 0 points by Sitapea (-28) from Fort Belvoir, VA 7 years ago

I have a feeling that most of AfroAmerica would disagree with your statement.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

You may be right and I have seen it.



[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 7 years ago

it starts at home with parents that teach their children to be responsible by setting the example by being responsible themselves. the dems want a dependent society because their game plan is to keep power by keeping people dependent on govt.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

While the corporation has no say in how the funds will be dispersed, it can choose whether or not to establish itself as a corporation in the US. If it does not like how things are done there, it should not choose to establish itself there.

Government spending should be efficient, however, an economy, just like a business, requires investment in order to flourish. Cutting investment in an economy or a business will lead to the failure of either.

However, raising taxes is not the answer, but rather, increasing the amount of taxable economic activity. The first step towards this would be to pass Glass Steagall, eliminating all the funny money from our system.

Then, we should turn the Federal Reserve into a national bank, which would make massive amounts of credit available, but only for economic development projects, at low interest rates to be paid back over the long term - that is, 50 years or more since decades are required for real economic development.

Big economic development projects would require the re-establishment of manufacturing industry in the US to provide the vast quantity of industrial goods that would be required. This would increase tax revenue from both companies and individuals, since there would be many more of them gainfully employed, without raising tax rates on any particular bracket.

[-] -1 points by GenerationOfPeace (-15) 7 years ago

Generation Of Peace man!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Visualize whirled peas! I don't know, I saw it on a bumper sticker.

[-] -1 points by GenerationOfPeace (-15) 7 years ago

I love acronyms

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago


To you GOP!








[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

The middle class creates jobs by buying things

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

And the business class provide jobs for these middle class to buy things by providing them with a means to "earn income".

Now, let me ask you, why do you think a person goes into business no one else seems to know the answer?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

To satisfy a demand.

MY QUESTION: you have a "small" business - say a custom made furniture business if you pay less taxes, do you build more & hire more - to sell to ?
[ the proven, failed reagen-bush trickle down idea ]
do you hire more people because middle class demand is growing?

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

So, when a person goes into business to satisfy a demand where do the people who "satisfy this demand" get their money? Do they steal it or do they work for someone to get it?

My point is that without "businesses" there would be no middle class -

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

I do not believe in the myth of trickle down
I am a supply sider
In the last 50 years the rich have gotten a lot richer
their taxes have dropped drastically
and we have massive unemployment [ GE in 2010 paid ZERO on 14,000,000,000.00+ profits ]

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 7 years ago

I don't believe in absolute economic theories, I think supply side has it's merits as well as trickle down, I actually think these two theories work together in a closed loop economy, however that loop is broken, and the break is on the manufacturing side, since we don't make anything anymore the trickle down just trickles out to china. Thereby breaking the entire economic loop. What's left is a crippled supply side economy

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

If I started a Business I would be Lower class since I haven't worked for over a year. I would not have much capital or credit with the bank.

So Small Busines creation from me would be ... $50-$200K. Lower class... For 2 years if I make $40 K that sounds like low class.

I just want to say that there is proof that US Economy depends on small businesses with capitalization below $600 K. Seems to me that if you buy a restaurant it is like $500K Average. You have many waiters/wairtress and busboys/dishwashers. Payroll is like another $500K minimum. So small business is like $1M minimum capitalization with like 30 employees.

But this restaurant could be owned by you or me.

So what is the definition of a low class or middle class businsess or a small business.? I'm thinking like must have 6 emplyees, less than 300 emplyees... less than $50,000,000 capitalization.

Probably the definition of small business will depend on the Industry ... you don't want a single guy with no employees to be a defense contractor getting contracts as a small business without any employees. There is a government test for small business, but it allows big companies often. And you dont' want major defense contractors/designers to qualifiy for contracts as small busines if they have $150 M business...no matter if they only have 300 employees or maybe 200 employees.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

The gov determines small business as less than 500 employees. Which I always found funny. Ive worked for myself since I was 23, only had a few employees at a time, most of the time just me.

For them to compare me to a guy with 400 employees is a bit crazy.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

BTW does it seem like this forum is falling off ...seems like people might be going to a new site or even just moving on.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Maybe the most partisan users have gone on to other efforts now that their candidates got beaten like an old salvation army drum.

Heh eh.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

Thanks. I appreciate you being here. We are not so different. Socialism is best, but is complicted as a label. We have have either a mixed economy or Libetarian Socialism. I guess.

Thinking about a new post on Psychology... embracing all men and women ....

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Sounds good.

Socialism has a bad rap that's true. Our economy has had some elements of socialism, (not enough) The banks a little socialism when they took the bail out. (not much complaining then)

Mostly our economy is a mutated version of capitalism that includes extreme elements of the worst parts of capitalism. That must change.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

Ah, correct... we have a Corporate-Government System or a Government Corporate System. I like the former better...

1) Corproarate Welfare
2) Corporate subsidies
3) Corporate Tax Abatements, Federal & State
4) Federal Loan Guarentees for Petroleum and other Oil Companies
5) Defense Contracts
6) HHS Contracts
7) Agriculture Subsidies
8) Petroleum Subsidies
9) Walmart Subsidies
10) All of the above is Socialism ... if the government is involved it is socialism... in this case CORPORATE Socialism.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Indeed the biggest problem is the entanglments/influence of corp 1% oligarchs on the peoples govt.

We've been convinced that "the business of America is business", that if we help wealthy they will 'trickle down', that all the wealthy succeeded because of their genius.

All lies.

Changing these fundamental concepts must be a high priority.

One effort can be to assert that if we want to help business (& even wealthy) we should help as many working class people as possible. (Money does not naturally "trickle down" The natural flow of money is up.)

We should also reassert that this govt is "of the people, for the people & by the people".

We should also celebrate helping others more than we do acquiring wealth & consumer goods. We MUST refocus our national mission statement on "we're in this together" not "you're on your own".

There are other basic psychological efforts that MUST occur I'm sure. They must be developed. And it is important because it is always the propaganda that must change before our actions in fact change.

It is a necessary step. Not easy. But necessary.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

We should work together ...maybe I should buy a house to rent in Tampa ... but live out of country. I have a house up north that I live in and pay the mortgage on ...think I have to throw out all my belongings and move on. Maybe rent this place too.

But maybe I should look for business in Ecuador, Mexico, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, India, Thailand, ... or just teach English some where....

Time to move on.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

So, just how do tax cuts to the rich provide jobs?

Will they finally be buying 1,000,000,000,000 cars for their kids this Christmas?

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

I'm not so sure your perspective as to what is being referred to by the term "Middle Class" is on the mark. You mention "small business", and taking "thousands of dollars" to start up business and making jobs. When one's talking only "thousands of dollars", that is "middle class". That's small change in the big picture. When one says wealthy one is talking about "millions" and "billions", and yes there are people out there with millions in their wallet, and billions in their bank account. When the President is talking Middle class that is exactly what he is talking about 'the folks with thousands of dollars, but not millions and billions of dollars. And the people he wants to tax are the ones with millions and billions, and not the ones who only have thousands.

Now with all due respect, if you don't have at your disposal at least a few thousand dollars to drop on a small business, you're not middle class, you're poor.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

It appears that your perspective of "thousands of dollars" with regard to starting a business is different then my perspective. With regard to wealthy - there is no "true" definition of what determines wealth - it's an individual thing.

And with regard to whom the president thinks is "middle class" - well he hasn't defined that - he only talks about those making more then $250,000 to have their taxes increased. Does a person who makes $250,000 mean that person is in the middle class or wealthy?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

People making $250,000 a year are the top 1% of the population, while those making $100,000 a year are at the top 7% of the population. Even if you set the lower limit for middle class at an income of $50,000 a year, only 25% of the population would qualify. That leaves three quarters of Americans out of the middle class, over 230 million people.


[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Whether a person who makes $250,000 a year is wealthy, that depends on what you consider is being wealthy, as you say.

What is for sure, the President is saying he will not be raising taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year, and that means he will not be raising taxes on me, and most likely not you either, and also not on any small business owner making less than $250,000 which includes most small business owners as most do not make that amount of money.

The vast majority of Americans will be untouched, and will only benefit by what the President is proposing in taxes.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

I hate to disagree with you but the vast majority of businesses make more then $250,000 a year. Tell me how much do you think a small business needs to make and spend to keep the doors of that company open?

The vast majority of small businesses need revenues to invest for the next year and if they don't they either won't hire new employees or expand like most companies are doing today.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

I got a small business which I started with only $17,000 (ok, so that was thirty years back.) I rarely make over $100,000/yr. Most businesses are mom and pop shops whose profits are less than what I'm making. What we are talking about is individuals making over $250,000/yr; not total company income. So, even if a company is raking in several million dollars a year, so long as they do not pay or profit by more than $250,000 each year, their taxes will not go up. Very few individuals make over $250,000/yr, and those that do I am sure can afford to give a little extra change back to the community.

By the way, the government is this country's largest employer, and procurer of goods.Employment directly goes up as a result of any additional tax revenue.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Yes - People make all business's successful - People make all business's possible - People do the work that makes a business possible.



[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Well if the person who is in "middle class" didn't have a job to go to run by a business owner, how could they become middle class?

Where does the job come from to put them in a "middle class" or wealthy catagory?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Middle class owners - are you daft?

It is only a very small percentage of people and business's that are sucking up all the money they can get their hands on - and then placing that money off shore - removing it from the economy.

In case you were still not understanding - the ones who are driving this society/economy/environment/world into the mud - are small in number but working on a very large scale.


[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

So you say a small percentage are sucking up all that money and removing it from the economy. Who's fault is that - who's investing in these companies by buying their product.

Ever look into what kind of companies are growing overseas and sending products here in the US of A - electronics - and who's buying all those cheap electronics - the X, Y and melinium generation.

And who's complaining about not having a job and think big companies are too rich - those who are buying their products - X, Y and melinimum generation - that's who.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Who are we reaching out to ( those of us who support OWS and all Occupy Movements ) - we are reaching out to those who are not yet aware. And we made some good progress in this last year. So We Continue.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Well if you are going to reach out reach out with the attitude that contributing instead of taking will make the economy grow.

Condeming the 1% because of individual failures won't solve an indivuals problems and thinking that taking from the 1% is going to solve the problem - it won't.

How about instead of focusing on the 1% instead focus on how to get the younger generation back to work by enabling them to understand what it takes to get a decent paying job and to become successful.

Put energy into becoming part of the 1% instead of condeming it. There are vast opportunities in this country. To say there aren't is wrong.

Did you know that 29 million people started their own "small business" within the last year. They did it because they couldn't find a job and as a result they invested in themselves. Thats the start to becoming successful.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Yep - we are reaching out to get those who are hoarding money to put it back into the economy - put that hoarded wealth to work doing good and needed things.

So why is it exactly that you are defending the greedy few? Why is it that you are defending their debilitating practices/excesses?

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

I am not defending the "wealthy". What I am defending is a persons ability to succede which is what this country is losing because of the attitude towards success.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

We buy stuff silly.

Do you really think the Koch brothers buy 70,000 pair of pants a week and drive 50,000 cars?

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

We aren't talking about the Kotch brothers - we are talking about the economy and jobs.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago


Sure we are.

It takes a middle class to buy all the stuff.

The rich just don't spend enough to pay for their burden on society.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

the middle class provides the consumer demand that all business looks for, follows, responds to by hiring people when that consumer demand grows.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

And if a "middle class" person doesn't have a job to go to then what? They are no longer "middle class". You may look at it as a "two way street" when it comes to consumers and businesses but where does it start - it starts with a person wanting to start a business and investing in it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

They're not gonna want to start a business unless they see a demand they can fill.

Chicken egg baby. You gotta have both!

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Youre right, and the reason there are no jobs is because business can't survive because consumers are buying up all the cheap chinese made products instead of investing in America.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I support tax incentives to encourage American manufacturing/discourage importing ever more cheap Chinese crap. (Walmart!).

I think also a major element of low consumer demand is the existing high credit card debt. And since banks created the 'great recession'/unemployment crises, as well as the existing exploitive loan shark level interest/excessive fee/penalty cr card system. I think we can force banks to cut the principle for working class credit card debt holders in half and limit all interest & fees & penalties.

That will put more money in the pockets of working class consumers and increase demand.

Of course I support the infrastructure jobs bank/bill, greentech jobs, & the vets jobs bill but since we have almost 90% employment I think a major effort to cut the heavy debt/tax load on working class will do the most good.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

I was cooking, now I make websites. My overhead is 20% of my revenue. After 49 more clients, I will hire an account manager to take over menial tasks. Does that qualify?

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Hey, at least you have goals and goals are what make people successful.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

God these troll threads are boring.

[-] 2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Well then don't read them - go read something else.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

Well, since you asked nicely, it's not that much of a sacrifice.


[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

The middle class consists primarily of two kinds of people - those who are successfully self-employed and those who work for big business. I think there are a lot of comfortable working class people who would prefer to think of themselves as middle class but if as comfortable working class you do exactly as most suggest here - consume to drive the economy - you will never be middle class. There is one defining difference - the middle class have the assets that will allow them to lose their income, and although they may slide a notch, they will still survive rather comfortably. Because they have created this degree of separation that ensures some security.

For those who are financially driven taxes and regulation are anathema - we are too heavily taxed, and not just on income, and we are far too heavily regulated.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

Ok getting there... sort of.... a lot of the middle class now is baby boomers who are merely hanging on with the equity they have in their houses. People who are not home owners and not making a livable wage to afford the artificially inflated house prices are not middle class and probably won't ever be. Taxes aren't the problem - Shrinking Middle Class pay rates (ergo the buying base of the country) and the way the tax system and trade laws and banking industry practices have been designed to benefit the wealthy one percent - is the problem.

[-] 1 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

There were a number of factors that combined to keep housing more affordable for the boomer of the late 50s and early 60s. First and foremost the easy lending practices of the New Millennium did not exist - it was 20% down, and one and a half times the annual income, not inclusive of overtime, alimony, or the wife as second earner. Houses were more affordable because the banks would not exceed these ratios in lending. They also demanded more long term financial stability which is virtually impossible to obtain now because employers rarely exist long enough today to offer long term employment; less of an issue too was the fact that all couples were married and less inclined to divorce; these were more financially stable relationships.

And so we now have an increase in rates of foreclosure and an attempt to leverage that risk because the two earner household either breaks up or divorces.

The relaxation of the banks on second earner income also greatly contributed to rising prices because that second income allowed the couple to spend more; prices virtually doubled. They have since tripled, quadrupled, increased as much as six or seven times or more.

The house of the boomer generation was also generally smaller and created by a custom builder that was more dedicated to quality and less dedicated to profit; they were simply more work oriented, more inclined to hands-on, less dedicated to overhead, and their labor as a result was less expensive.

Wood was being mass produced, was more plentiful, and less expensive and building and zoning restrictions were less costly. The LED lightbulb is a perfect example of this - all new homes now require LED installation; 100 bulbs to light a home and we're talking a four or five thousand dollar bill just bulbs; another example might be the arc fault circuit interrupter - because the price of that circuit breaker is 40 bucks; these breakers alone have added a thousand dollars or more to the price of a service. The smokes and CO2 monitors, too - they have added 1500 to 2000 to the price of a home. We can go on and on because this is only one small aspect of construction.

Can we blame the 1%? Sure, in large part we can because it was they who favored the wife in a tool of society formula and following thesuccessful placement of women in the workplace, even consideration of the live-in partner as second earner; it was the 1% who intentionally eased lending while leveraging risk; the demand created by the money for everyone and anyone practice exceeded supply.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4158) 7 years ago

new home construction has no bearing - .. there are plenty of old homes that are over-valued I believe landlords profiting off section 8 vouchers have infiltrated the rental market which causes them to compete with younger people for cheaper homes that they could convert. In this case the rental rates soared as did home prices - it's a guaranteed government check to the landlord at the market rate price. And this portion of the housing inflation has nothing to do with banks. Landlords and Realty trust corporations are outbidding young couples on the most crappy falling apart cheaper houses because they paper paint make it what it ain't and then rent it out (all with a cash offering - that the seller will always prefer) You can't outbid a cash offering when you've got to go through the rigamorole of a difficult to get loan. Again housing has changed it's become a market. Young people can't just live someplace anymore, and landlords are all looking to make a killing. Guess who regulates all those electrical codes - the corporation making the arc fault circuit interrupter. In fact almost every electrical code requiring certain specific equipment was written into the codes so a corporation could profit. It's corporate profiteering at it's finest. I will say it's landlord profiteering at is finest also. The worst experience was walking through a home that had no walls or boiler and this skeevy landlord pulled up in a Porsche walked in without an appointment with a slutty 20 year old on his arm who looked like a prostitute on drugs walked past my fiance and I and told our agent hardly needed an once of work and he could rent it out like is nice and cozy. They especially love profiting off of all the foreclosures. It's sickening. Also rental rates are now higher than it costs to have a mortgage (making it impossible to save a 20% down payment) Even though it's cheaper than renting to own your own home (the banks won't lend). Wood is being artificially inflated due to stock market scarcity speculation. Just look how high prices went even before insurance estimates began in the wake of Sandy.

What's more sickening is telling women they drove down the pay-rates by entering the workforce. How dare they try to survive on their own and earn a living? Huh - it's not really people's fault the one percent keep coming up with more and more complicated algorithms that will cheat and hose the American worker and consumer out of a decent living. Screw that! And another thing - most of the people that got caught holding an over-valued mortgage on a backwards loan were people trying to flip them that either waited too long or tried to do it at the wrong time while the market had begun to decline. And to them I say screw you - that's what you get for turning housing into a roulette table and screwing the younger generation out of housing too bad you got caught holding your mortgage and strategically foreclosed (while protecting your own house under homesteader act.) The bank loans were designed for them... the loan officers unfortunately had no scruples about offering them to people who actually just wanted a home to live in (and weren't playing some market flip roulette game) and didn't understand what a balloon payment was or that you had to get rid of the house as quickly as you bought it after it gained $20,000 in value within a 2 month span. And to those just looking for some part in the American dream, I feel sorry that it's failed them so miserably. ... hey being that so many construction workers are out of work, you'd think all the employed secretaries/ women would have to get paid more now that they are the sole breadwinners and we're back to the way it was when we had a one income household and to cover the cost of all their unemployment pay? Nope !!!!guess it doesn't work that way?

Also for them to know what a person can survive on, they'd have to seriously be keeping track of this data... so every time employers think you might be able to afford less pay (like your spouse is working) they know it?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

The middle class are the supreme consumers!!!!

Consumers control 75% of the economy, because they spend their money on things that the rich already have. Small and big biz benefit big time.

We have a DEMAND economy!

What on earth are you fishing for?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Without a job, as the present situation we are in now, the middle class is dwindling. So what does that tell you - we need "businesses" to provide jobs for the middle class to exist - right?

If people don't have a job that puts them in the middle class then they become the lower class don't they.

Consumers do contribute to the economy, but condeming and taking profits away from businesses won't get the middle class to the upper class but instead will leave them without a job.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Take English!

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Obama is a waste of time. No leadership. No vision, and no details.

His main accomplishments have been forcing us to buy shit from corrupted lobbies and executing the withdrawal of Iraq that was planned before he got in.

Now if you are a globalist pig, then the list of accomplishments are endless.!!!

[-] -3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 7 years ago

Kind of late for election talk, isn't it?

But yes, this is one of the fundamental contradictions of Occupy. Complaining about unemployment while vilifying employers.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 7 years ago

Well, these people need to have a "rude awaking'. They are the ones who will be running this country in the next 10 years and they had better understand that taking instead of contributing doesn't make the economy grow.

[-] 1 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

I think there are some things people really need to learn the hard way because obviously if they have not experienced it then your words of caution do not ring true. We have an economic learning curve in our future. Because people have forgotten the years of famine.