Are Democrats for The Middle Class?

[BULLDOG]

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

Like the woman that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued for millions?

You realize the old woman had to have plastic surgery, and only filed suit after McDonalds refused to even help her wit the emergency room and surgery bills don't you

This was not reported in the major media because the major media is not allowed to report the real news harmful to the one percent and corporations.

I'm not sure it has anything to do with being allowed. That part of the story wasn't sensational enough to be discussed. It's all about stirring up the viewers, and the saying " If it bleeds, it leads" is pretty accurate when it comes to what is reported..

 

[Little-Acorn]

In case you missed some of the posts on here claiming how bad things are. Those are ALWAYS written by right winger lazy fucks.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute any of them, but I hate them anyway. So I'll curse and swear, call them names, and hope somebody believes me instead of them.

 

[candycorn]

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Correction...they "should" have insurance.

I was a business owner....several times over.
Most of my CLIENTS asked for proof of my insurances before they signed contracts with me.....in NYS, the state requires proof of insurances to maintain ones license to operate a business in NYS....
Most who do not have insurance is usually a result of them allowing the insurance to lapse due to non payment....but at the anniversary, they need to produce valid insurance.

So what you're saying is that while it is estimated that 14% of all drivers don't have auto insurance (AAA figures) for the cars they drive to work, the cars they drive at work are nearly 100% insured; that somehow this 14% of the population is more responsible in one phase of their lives than in the other? I guess I could believe that if I were an optimist. I discount it however on the basis of my being a realist. But lets assume you're right...they are just too busy to attend to the detail of paying for their state mandated insurance.

How many have just the legally bare minimum of coverage--as a percentage--would you say? What did you cover over and beyond the State minimum requirement?

 

[candycorn]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

There are lots of laws that protect companies from damage, but that one is crap. If there is a danger to surrounding vehicles, they have to have a permit, and an escort to drive behind them keeping other traffic a safe distance away. A broken windshield from driving behind a big truck might be hard to prove, but if a sign like that keeps you from even trying, that is so much better for them.

Yeah, that's what I figured.

 

[j-mac]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

Hmmm. Looking at my middle class W-2 right now...Sure looks like I paid over $10K in income tax.

 

[candycorn]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Insurance just pays the bill. It doesn't relieve the truck from liability. This is about a dumb sign that trucks have to try to trick people out of demanding repairs caused by the truck.

Hypthetically....

If you saw a sign like that on the road and there was a footnote beneath the sign that cited the law....

Who would you think proposed the law, backed it, shepherded it through the legislature and sign it:

Democrats or Republicans?

 

[The Rabbi]

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

We're not talking about the fluctuations in the numbers, or the individual wealth of each. We're talking about the class as a percentage. They are real. How can anyone deny that there is a class of very wealthy, and that class is the minority class? It doesn't matter if the names change, the percentage is still there. Yes, some enter and some exit. Yes, names change. But, even though the numbers are increasing, their percentage remains basically the same. It is NOT a myth. The wealthy are real. The percentage is real.

That might be the most asinine comment I've seen here in some time. And that's really saying something.
Yes, of course what you say is sort of true. In the sense that in any economy some people will be in the top 1% while other people will be in the bottom 1%. Because income is not equal. Even the Soviet Union had a top 1% of income earners and a bottom.
So what?

Exactly my point. Of course it's true. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with Democrats, or Democrats helping. ( refer to the title of your post ) So, please tell me what is asinine about me stating the obvious? Please explain. Look, I don't make this stuff up. We're constantly flooded with stats about class, and the percentage of each. Rarely, if ever, is a political party referenced to either helping the upper class, or harming them. And, when it does happen, there's absolutely nothing to base it on, nothing. Remember, we've had a wealthy percentage since the beginning of man. And, surely you know that the upper 1% has existed through many administrations, both Republican and Democrat. So, the bottom lines is, there is no party for the top 1%. The top 1% has done well for many decades now, regardless of the make up of Congress, or who occupied the oval office.

So, again, what is asinine about me stating the obvious? Please explain. Thanks.

If this country looked like Haiti,one of the poorest countries in the world, we would still have a top 1% and a bottom 1%. So you are stating the obvious. And it is largely meaningless.

 

[candycorn]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

Hmmm. Looking at my middle class W-2 right now...Sure looks like I paid over $10K in income tax.

Yeah but....Benghazi.

 

[The Rabbi]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

Hmmm. Looking at my middle class W-2 right now...Sure looks like I paid over $10K in income tax.

Yes we should absolutely believe you because you're posting anonymously on a message board.
And even if true I assume not everyone in teh US who gets a W2 paid over 10k in income taxes.

 

[candycorn]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

Hmmm. Looking at my middle class W-2 right now...Sure looks like I paid over $10K in income tax.

Yes we should absolutely believe you because you're posting anonymously on a message board.

And why should anyone believe what you say?

 

[Ubiquitor]

It's always amusing when people argue about which party is for the middle class when the fact of the matter is neither is. They both want the middle class gone. They want the rich paying them and the poor begging them to vote to give them free stuff.

The GOP has a reputation of offering free stuff and that's why the poor vote for them?

No, that's why the rich vote for them.

Just so you understand without the spin...

It is not "the rich" vote for them.....

The "business owners" vote for them because the GOP believe that the backbone of the economy is the business owner and therefore they back legislation that is designed to make it easier for the business owner to thrive, thus opening the door to hiring people.

And yes, those people tend to be "the rich".....but my way is a more mature and less spun way of presenting it.

Putting aside that you contradicted yourself, the difference between the two parties is less and less each year. The fundamental difference is who they pay lip-service to. The bottom line is that neither party is actually for the middle class. People like Elizabeth Warren will pretend to be, but when push comes to shove she'll take the money and the cushy job over putting her words into action. All you have to do is follow the money and in the last election cycle the Dems actually passed the GOP in billionaire donors.

 

[Jarhead]

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Correction...they "should" have insurance.

I was a business owner....several times over.
Most of my CLIENTS asked for proof of my insurances before they signed contracts with me.....in NYS, the state requires proof of insurances to maintain ones license to operate a business in NYS....
Most who do not have insurance is usually a result of them allowing the insurance to lapse due to non payment....but at the anniversary, they need to produce valid insurance.

So what you're saying is that while it is estimated that 14% of all drivers don't have auto insurance (AAA figures) for the cars they drive to work, the cars they drive at work are nearly 100% insured; that somehow this 14% of the population is more responsible in one phase of their lives than in the other? I guess I could believe that if I were an optimist. I discount it however on the basis of my being a realist. But lets assume you're right...they are just too busy to attend to the detail of paying for their state mandated insurance.

How many have just the legally bare minimum of coverage--as a percentage--would you say? What did you cover over and beyond the State minimum requirement?

Candycorn...if you have ever owned a business you would not question what I am saying. Whereas insurance for a private driver is law, the only time you need to prove you have insurance is when you renew your registration or when you are stopped by a police officer.
In business, most clients require proof of your insurance annually and the state requires proof of insurance annually. And if you claim to be insured, and you are not and the client finds out, you lose the client AND your reputation and ultimately your business.
A private driver found to be without insurance may lose their license for 6 months. A business found to be without insurance may lose their license to operate in that state permanently...and if not permanently, they will likely lose all of their clients during the period they lost their license to operate.
Business owners do not, ON THE MOST PART worry about what the state minimum is. They worry about what they need so as not to lose everything if they were hit with a legitimate claim.
For example....my requirement for my industry was E and O for $100,000. However, my clients were such that I was well aware that a claim could amount to well above that so I always carried $1,000,000.
Are there stupid business owners out there that try to get away with "the bear minimum"? Sure. Most of them end up going out of business.

I know...you are from the school of "business owners are greedy and they will always try to get away with the bare minimum"....

Not true. If such were true, why do businesses pay $75 a square foot for office space in NYC when they can spend $20 a square foot in Queens? BECASUE THEY KNOW IT IS BETTER FOR BUSINESS.

So the greed you may believe gives them reason to try to get away with the bare minimum is the same greed that gives them reason to not try to get away with the bare minimum.

 

[Jarhead]

It's always amusing when people argue about which party is for the middle class when the fact of the matter is neither is. They both want the middle class gone. They want the rich paying them and the poor begging them to vote to give them free stuff.

The GOP has a reputation of offering free stuff and that's why the poor vote for them?

No, that's why the rich vote for them.

Just so you understand without the spin...

It is not "the rich" vote for them.....

The "business owners" vote for them because the GOP believe that the backbone of the economy is the business owner and therefore they back legislation that is designed to make it easier for the business owner to thrive, thus opening the door to hiring people.

And yes, those people tend to be "the rich".....but my way is a more mature and less spun way of presenting it.

Putting aside that you contradicted yourself, the difference between the two parties is less and less each year. The fundamental difference is who they pay lip-service to. The bottom line is that neither party is actually for the middle class. People like Elizabeth Warren will pretend to be, but when push comes to shove she'll take the money and the cushy job over putting her words into action. All you have to do is follow the money and in the last election cycle the Dems actually passed the GOP in billionaire donors.

where did I contradict myself?

 

[Sonny Clark]

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

We're not talking about the fluctuations in the numbers, or the individual wealth of each. We're talking about the class as a percentage. They are real. How can anyone deny that there is a class of very wealthy, and that class is the minority class? It doesn't matter if the names change, the percentage is still there. Yes, some enter and some exit. Yes, names change. But, even though the numbers are increasing, their percentage remains basically the same. It is NOT a myth. The wealthy are real. The percentage is real.

That might be the most asinine comment I've seen here in some time. And that's really saying something.
Yes, of course what you say is sort of true. In the sense that in any economy some people will be in the top 1% while other people will be in the bottom 1%. Because income is not equal. Even the Soviet Union had a top 1% of income earners and a bottom.
So what?

Exactly my point. Of course it's true. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with Democrats, or Democrats helping. ( refer to the title of your post ) So, please tell me what is asinine about me stating the obvious? Please explain. Look, I don't make this stuff up. We're constantly flooded with stats about class, and the percentage of each. Rarely, if ever, is a political party referenced to either helping the upper class, or harming them. And, when it does happen, there's absolutely nothing to base it on, nothing. Remember, we've had a wealthy percentage since the beginning of man. And, surely you know that the upper 1% has existed through many administrations, both Republican and Democrat. So, the bottom lines is, there is no party for the top 1%. The top 1% has done well for many decades now, regardless of the make up of Congress, or who occupied the oval office.

So, again, what is asinine about me stating the obvious? Please explain. Thanks.

If this country looked like Haiti,one of the poorest countries in the world, we would still have a top 1% and a bottom 1%. So you are stating the obvious. And it is largely meaningless.

Well, what you posted is meaningless also. That's exactly why I commented as such. Yes, what I said is common knowledge, and it applies to every nation on Earth. But, go re-read your post, please. What do Democrats have to do with anything concerning the top 1%? The answer, "absolutely ZERO." The extremely wealthy do NOT depend on a political party. Even the average wealthy don't depend on a political party. They make their money regardless of which party does what. So, see how meaningless your post is? If not, then something is bad wrong. What else did you expect someone to say to your post? What were you looking for? What kind of response were you fishing for?

You posted the possible ties between being wealthy and the Democrats, did you not? Do you not know that some of the wealthy are Republicans? So, your point was?

 

[candycorn]

It's always amusing when people argue about which party is for the middle class when the fact of the matter is neither is. They both want the middle class gone. They want the rich paying them and the poor begging them to vote to give them free stuff.

The GOP has a reputation of offering free stuff and that's why the poor vote for them?

No, that's why the rich vote for them.

Just so you understand without the spin...

It is not "the rich" vote for them.....

The "business owners" vote for them because the GOP believe that the backbone of the economy is the business owner and therefore they back legislation that is designed to make it easier for the business owner to thrive, thus opening the door to hiring people.

And yes, those people tend to be "the rich".....but my way is a more mature and less spun way of presenting it.

Putting aside that you contradicted yourself, the difference between the two parties is less and less each year. The fundamental difference is who they pay lip-service to. The bottom line is that neither party is actually for the middle class. People like Elizabeth Warren will pretend to be, but when push comes to shove she'll take the money and the cushy job over putting her words into action. All you have to do is follow the money and in the last election cycle the Dems actually passed the GOP in billionaire donors.

Well, while I agree with you that the difference between the two parties in terms of fiscal policy is the speed in which their members drop to their knees to worship at the altar of campaign donations, lets look at it from 30,000 feet for a moment...

There are actually more millionaires now than there were before Obama took office:

So naturally those who are new to the "club" will gravitate toward stasis instead of someone that may upset the apple cart; put another way, you pay those who can do (or continue to do) your bidding for you. Since the Democrats are in control of the Oval and up until November, the Senate, it only stands to reason that there would be more cash coming their way.

 

[The Rabbi]

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

We're not talking about the fluctuations in the numbers, or the individual wealth of each. We're talking about the class as a percentage. They are real. How can anyone deny that there is a class of very wealthy, and that class is the minority class? It doesn't matter if the names change, the percentage is still there. Yes, some enter and some exit. Yes, names change. But, even though the numbers are increasing, their percentage remains basically the same. It is NOT a myth. The wealthy are real. The percentage is real.

That might be the most asinine comment I've seen here in some time. And that's really saying something.
Yes, of course what you say is sort of true. In the sense that in any economy some people will be in the top 1% while other people will be in the bottom 1%. Because income is not equal. Even the Soviet Union had a top 1% of income earners and a bottom.
So what?

Exactly my point. Of course it's true. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with Democrats, or Democrats helping. ( refer to the title of your post ) So, please tell me what is asinine about me stating the obvious? Please explain. Look, I don't make this stuff up. We're constantly flooded with stats about class, and the percentage of each. Rarely, if ever, is a political party referenced to either helping the upper class, or harming them. And, when it does happen, there's absolutely nothing to base it on, nothing. Remember, we've had a wealthy percentage since the beginning of man. And, surely you know that the upper 1% has existed through many administrations, both Republican and Democrat. So, the bottom lines is, there is no party for the top 1%. The top 1% has done well for many decades now, regardless of the make up of Congress, or who occupied the oval office.

So, again, what is asinine about me stating the obvious? Please explain. Thanks.

If this country looked like Haiti,one of the poorest countries in the world, we would still have a top 1% and a bottom 1%. So you are stating the obvious. And it is largely meaningless.

Well, what you posted is meaningless also. That's exactly why I commented as such. Yes, what I said is common knowledge, and it applies to every nation on Earth. But, go re-read your post, please. What do Democrats have to do with anything concerning the top 1%? The answer, "absolutely ZERO." The extremely wealthy do NOT depend on a political party. Even the average wealthy don't depend on a political party. They make their money regardless of which party does what. So, see how meaningless your post is? If not, then something is bad wrong. What else did you expect someone to say to your post? What were you looking for? What kind of response were you fishing for?

You posted the possible ties between being wealthy and the Democrats, did you not? Do you not know that some of the wealthy are Republicans? So, your point was?

You ar rapidly joining the Jake Starkey wing here.
First you missed the point. The Dems say they're for the middle class. But they also say they are for the underclass. The only thing they do not say they are for is the upper class. But how can that be? Each class has its own interests and what benefits one wont necessarily benefit the other.
Second, just as there is always a top 1% there is always a bottom 1%. There is always a bottom 40%. Which percentage class are the Dems for? How do you know?
Finally of course the wealtjhy depend on politicians. Why do you think people hire lobbyists to influence legislation and how it is written?

 

[Jarhead]

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Correction...they "should" have insurance.

I was a business owner....several times over.
Most of my CLIENTS asked for proof of my insurances before they signed contracts with me.....in NYS, the state requires proof of insurances to maintain ones license to operate a business in NYS....
Most who do not have insurance is usually a result of them allowing the insurance to lapse due to non payment....but at the anniversary, they need to produce valid insurance.

So what you're saying is that while it is estimated that 14% of all drivers don't have auto insurance (AAA figures) for the cars they drive to work, the cars they drive at work are nearly 100% insured; that somehow this 14% of the population is more responsible in one phase of their lives than in the other? I guess I could believe that if I were an optimist. I discount it however on the basis of my being a realist. But lets assume you're right...they are just too busy to attend to the detail of paying for their state mandated insurance.

How many have just the legally bare minimum of coverage--as a percentage--would you say? What did you cover over and beyond the State minimum requirement?

In addition to my earlier response Candycorn...
I do not know this as fact....but it is most definitely an educated guess...

of the 14% private drivers that are not insured....I bet over 90% of them do not own a business.
So yes, I believe that the 14% stat is not relevant when discussing business owners.

Curious...do you know of anyone without auto insurance? I don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Correction...they "should" have insurance.

I was a business owner....several times over.
Most of my CLIENTS asked for proof of my insurances before they signed contracts with me.....in NYS, the state requires proof of insurances to maintain ones license to operate a business in NYS....
Most who do not have insurance is usually a result of them allowing the insurance to lapse due to non payment....but at the anniversary, they need to produce valid insurance.

So what you're saying is that while it is estimated that 14% of all drivers don't have auto insurance (AAA figures) for the cars they drive to work, the cars they drive at work are nearly 100% insured; that somehow this 14% of the population is more responsible in one phase of their lives than in the other? I guess I could believe that if I were an optimist. I discount it however on the basis of my being a realist. But lets assume you're right...they are just too busy to attend to the detail of paying for their state mandated insurance.

How many have just the legally bare minimum of coverage--as a percentage--would you say? What did you cover over and beyond the State minimum requirement?

In addition to my earlier response Candycorn...
I do not know this as fact....but it is most definitely an educated guess...

of the 14% private drivers that are not insured....I bet over 90% of them do not own a business.
So yes, I believe that the 14% stat is not relevant when discussing business owners.

Curious...do you know of anyone without auto insurance? I don't.

It happens all the time. People lose their auto insurance for non payment of premium and the like. What was the point here again?

 

[Jarhead]

Candycorn....

When you hire a contractor for your home, do you not ask for proof of insurance? I do. Always.

Well, the same thing in business. Smart business owners ask their vendors for proof of insurance.

But....

When was the last time you got in someone's car and asked for proof of insurance? When at a red light, do you ever ask the driver next to you for proof of insurance?

Sorry....toss that 14% argument out the window.

 

[candycorn]

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Correction...they "should" have insurance.

I was a business owner....several times over.
Most of my CLIENTS asked for proof of my insurances before they signed contracts with me.....in NYS, the state requires proof of insurances to maintain ones license to operate a business in NYS....
Most who do not have insurance is usually a result of them allowing the insurance to lapse due to non payment....but at the anniversary, they need to produce valid insurance.

So what you're saying is that while it is estimated that 14% of all drivers don't have auto insurance (AAA figures) for the cars they drive to work, the cars they drive at work are nearly 100% insured; that somehow this 14% of the population is more responsible in one phase of their lives than in the other? I guess I could believe that if I were an optimist. I discount it however on the basis of my being a realist. But lets assume you're right...they are just too busy to attend to the detail of paying for their state mandated insurance.

How many have just the legally bare minimum of coverage--as a percentage--would you say? What did you cover over and beyond the State minimum requirement?

Candycorn...if you have ever owned a business you would not question what I am saying. Whereas insurance for a private driver is law, the only time you need to prove you have insurance is when you renew your registration or when you are stopped by a police officer.
In business, most clients require proof of your insurance annually and the state requires proof of insurance annually. And if you claim to be insured, and you are not and the client finds out, you lose the client AND your reputation and ultimately your business.
A private driver found to be without insurance may lose their license for 6 months. A business found to be without insurance may lose their license to operate in that state permanently...and if not permanently, they will likely lose all of their clients during the period they lost their license to operate.
Business owners do not, ON THE MOST PART worry about what the state minimum is. They worry about what they need so as not to lose everything if they were hit with a legitimate claim.
For example....my requirement for my industry was E and O for $100,000. However, my clients were such that I was well aware that a claim could amount to well above that so I always carried $1,000,000.
Are there stupid business owners out there that try to get away with "the bear minimum"? Sure. Most of them end up going out of business.

I'm sure they do.

I know...you are from the school of "business owners are greedy and they will always try to get away with the bare minimum"....

Ask any associate at Wal Mart that has been there for a few months. You'll see I have a lot of classmates.

Not true. If such were true, why do businesses pay $75 a square foot for office space in NYC when they can spend $20 a square foot in Queens? BECASUE THEY KNOW IT IS BETTER FOR BUSINESS.

Apples and oranges comparison.

So the greed you may believe gives them reason to try to get away with the bare minimum is the same greed that gives them reason to not try to get away with the bare minimum.

Not sure why you think that is a valid comparison at all. But lets play along, I can pretty much assure you that if the store moved from Queens to Tribeca, they're not paying the parking fees for their employees or the E-Z pass so they can go through the Tunnel in full. Does the business owner care? I doubt it. They'll probably get some of the subway or bus schedules and put them in the breakroom....free of charge of course.