Are Democrats for The Middle Class?

[Jarhead]

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?

Candycorn believes that because 14% of people out there operate without insurance, the same is likely true for businesses...and I am trying to explain to her that businesses have more reasons to keep their insurance up to date.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Really...what was the point of your thread shirley?

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Candycorn believes that because 14% of people out there operate without insurance, the same is likely true for businesses...and I am trying to explain to her that businesses have more reasons to keep their insurance up to date.

They have every incentive because if they have an incident without insurance they will be sued and lose their business.
Now, some businesses do not have insurance because they self-insure, maintaining reserves to pay off smaller claims.
Candycorn is a class A moron and the intellectual equivalent of decayed dog shit.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Candycorn believes that because 14% of people out there operate without insurance, the same is likely true for businesses...and I am trying to explain to her that businesses have more reasons to keep their insurance up to date.

Well, that's not what I said at all. I apologize for not being more concise. What I was saying was that if you have nearly one in seven Americans who forego buying auto insurance, you will have a number of business owners who will forego it on the business side of the equation and those that do pay, will pay the absolute minimum to satisfy the State requirements.

While I agree that businesses have more reason to be above board and keep up to date, the sad fact tis that human behavior often reverts back down to the lower end of the ebb; good enough is good enough. And besides, a lot of businesses employ nothing more than family members who wouldn't sue if they did get injured at work....and if they did, you form an incorporate to separate your business affairs from your personal books (as I understand it) so you are shielded from really feeling the consequences of your actions.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

The office space comparison is not apples to oranges.
The point is.....not carrying insurance is just as bad for business as inappropriate office space.

If the store moves from queens to Tribeca....lets analyze this....lets make believe you are the owner of the store....

You announce the move. You sit down with your star buyer and your star buyer tells you she can not afford to commute to Tribeca. You, as a business owner needs to make a decision. "she is excellent. Knows what the customers like to see on the shelves. Always keeps inventory up to date". A smart business owner will give her the raise to compensate. A not so smart business owner will tell her "sorry, it is what it is" and lose her. Now that not so smart business owner has to HOPE that the move is not a flop because she just lost her star buyer...and has to hope that she finds another good one. A lot of "hope" involved in an effort to save a little money.

Now, a clerk comes to you and ALSO says to you that he can not afford the new commute. Again, an educated decision must be made. The clerk has been with you for a year. Has not made any progress. Still a clerk. Dispensable. HAs no skill better than the tens of thousands of unemployed clerks out there. What would you do? Well, sure, you will say 'I would keep him and pay him more because he has shown great dedication to me"....
Are you sure he showed dedication to you and it wasn't dedication to his paycheck? Are you sure he wouldn't walk in a heartbeat if someone paid him more money?
Are you sure you want to increase HIS salary as well as the BUYERS salary at the same time that you are incurring all of the moving costs coupled with the expected LOSS of business due to the new location and not the core "local clientele" coming in that you had at your old location?

Having never owned a business, you do not understand the thought process of a business owner. There is a lot that goes into most decisions. And money isn't the only thingt. By far.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Candycorn believes that because 14% of people out there operate without insurance, the same is likely true for businesses...and I am trying to explain to her that businesses have more reasons to keep their insurance up to date.

They have every incentive because if they have an incident without insurance they will be sued and lose their business.
Now, some businesses do not have insurance because they self-insure, maintaining reserves to pay off smaller claims.

Sure they would...just like those folks who poisoned the Elk River in WVA. Oh wait, they declared bankruptcy. Sorry; no soup for you.
Amazingly.....

By January 13, a Kanawha County judge had granted a temporary restraining order against Freedom Industries, and the number of lawsuits filed in the Kanawha County Circuit Court had risen to 19.[27][40] On January 17, 2014, Freedom Industries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, requiring a court–appointed trustee to run the company.[4]

However, according to the Charleston Gazette, a company "whose characteristics are strikingly similar to Freedom Industries," Lexycon LLC, registered as a business with the West Virginia secretary of state about two months after Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy. The company is registered at the same addresses and phone numbers as the former Freedom Industries, and is founded by a former Freedom executive.[41]

It's utterly hilarious how easy it is for a company to walk away from damages it inflicts.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

Candycorn believes that because 14% of people out there operate without insurance, the same is likely true for businesses...and I am trying to explain to her that businesses have more reasons to keep their insurance up to date.

Well, that's not what I said at all. I apologize for not being more concise. What I was saying was that if you have nearly one in seven Americans who forego buying auto insurance, you will have a number of business owners who will forego it on the business side of the equation and those that do pay, will pay the absolute minimum to satisfy the State requirements.

While I agree that businesses have more reason to be above board and keep up to date, the sad fact tis that human behavior often reverts back down to the lower end of the ebb; good enough is good enough. And besides, a lot of businesses employ nothing more than family members who wouldn't sue if they did get injured at work....and if they did, you form an incorporate to separate your business affairs from your personal books (as I understand it) so you are shielded from really feeling the consequences of your actions.

You seem to be ignoiring one item...

A successful business owner did not become successful by trying to get away with the bare minimum.

Invariably, the ones with that attitude end yup failing well before they achieve success.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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?

So, again, what was the point that you were attempting to make by your post? What response were you looking for? Everything that you've said is common knowledge, period. All of us know the ties between the wealthy and politicians. I have said many times here that professional politicians are bought and paid for. That is common knowledge. All of us know about the influence of Lobbyists. And, the wealthy make their money regardless of which party does what. The wealthy don't sit around and wait for political favors. SO, again, what is your point in the root post, and what response were you looking for?

 

[Jarhead]

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?

Candycorn believes that because 14% of people out there operate without insurance, the same is likely true for businesses...and I am trying to explain to her that businesses have more reasons to keep their insurance up to date.

They have every incentive because if they have an incident without insurance they will be sued and lose their business.
Now, some businesses do not have insurance because they self-insure, maintaining reserves to pay off smaller claims.

Sure they would...just like those folks who poisoned the Elk River in WVA. Oh wait, they declared bankruptcy. Sorry; no soup for you.
Amazingly.....

By January 13, a Kanawha County judge had granted a temporary restraining order against Freedom Industries, and the number of lawsuits filed in the Kanawha County Circuit Court had risen to 19.[27][40] On January 17, 2014, Freedom Industries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, requiring a court–appointed trustee to run the company.[4]

However, according to the Charleston Gazette, a company "whose characteristics are strikingly similar to Freedom Industries," Lexycon LLC, registered as a business with the West Virginia secretary of state about two months after Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy. The company is registered at the same addresses and phone numbers as the former Freedom Industries, and is founded by a former Freedom executive.[41]

It's utterly hilarious how easy it is for a company to walk away from damages it inflicts.

I noticed you did not mention how the company under a new name succeeded...or if it succeeded.
Usually, when you need to change your name, you lose all contracts and have to start from scratch.

 

[candycorn]

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.

The office space comparison is not apples to oranges.
The point is.....not carrying insurance is just as bad for business as inappropriate office space.

If the store moves from queens to Tribeca....lets analyze this....lets make believe you are the owner of the store....

You announce the move. You sit down with your star buyer and your star buyer tells you she can not afford to commute to Tribeca. You, as a business owner needs to make a decision. "she is excellent. Knows what the customers like to see on the shelves. Always keeps inventory up to date". A smart business owner will give her the raise to compensate. A not so smart business owner will tell her "sorry, it is what it is" and lose her. Now that not so smart business owner has to HOPE that the move is not a flop because she just lost her star buyer...and has to hope that she finds another good one. A lot of "hope" involved in an effort to save a little money.

Now, a clerk comes to you and ALSO says to you that he can not afford the new commute. Again, an educated decision must be made. The clerk has been with you for a year. Has not made any progress. Still a clerk. Dispensable. HAs no skill better than the tens of thousands of unemployed clerks out there. What would you do? Well, sure, you will say 'I would keep him and pay him more because he has shown great dedication to me"....
Are you sure he showed dedication to you and it wasn't dedication to his paycheck? Are you sure he wouldn't walk in a heartbeat if someone paid him more money?
Are you sure you want to increase HIS salary as well as the BUYERS salary at the same time that you are incurring all of the moving costs coupled with the expected LOSS of business due to the new location and not the core "local clientele" coming in that you had at your old location?

Having never owned a business, you do not understand the thought process of a business owner. There is a lot that goes into most decisions. And money isn't the only thingt. By far.

It is apples and oranges. Because you do more business in lower MAN than in Hollis. There is a reason to move. In most cases, there isn't a clear ROI to over-insure your trucks.

I see what you're saying and I don't really disagree with you. But wouldn't the "smart" business owner not have all of his/her eggs in one basket...."If Jenny gets pregnant, I need someone else to do the buying...I'd better get someone else trained"? Then when you move, if Jenny doesn't like it, you have someone else trained; i.e. bench strength?

 

[candycorn]

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?

So, again, what was the point that you were attempting to make by your post? What response were you looking for? Everything that you've said is common knowledge, period. All of us know the ties between the wealthy and politicians. I have said many times here that professional politicians are bought and paid for. That is common knowledge. All of us know about the influence of Lobbyists. And, the wealthy make their money regardless of which party does what. The wealthy don't sit around and wait for political favors. SO, again, what is your point in the root post, and what response were you looking for?

Rabid was just trying to rag on Democrats and Liberals...he's a one trick pony who is old, tired and just plain sullen that he and his buddies are fading into the margins of history.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Candycorn believes that because 14% of people out there operate without insurance, the same is likely true for businesses...and I am trying to explain to her that businesses have more reasons to keep their insurance up to date.

Well, that's not what I said at all. I apologize for not being more concise. What I was saying was that if you have nearly one in seven Americans who forego buying auto insurance, you will have a number of business owners who will forego it on the business side of the equation and those that do pay, will pay the absolute minimum to satisfy the State requirements.

While I agree that businesses have more reason to be above board and keep up to date, the sad fact tis that human behavior often reverts back down to the lower end of the ebb; good enough is good enough. And besides, a lot of businesses employ nothing more than family members who wouldn't sue if they did get injured at work....and if they did, you form an incorporate to separate your business affairs from your personal books (as I understand it) so you are shielded from really feeling the consequences of your actions.

You seem to be ignoiring one item...

A successful business owner did not become successful by trying to get away with the bare minimum.

Invariably, the ones with that attitude end yup failing well before they achieve success.

I'm still not certain of the point here. Are some business owners stupid, lazy, criminal, and cheating? Yes. Of course they are. Are most? No, of course not.
Has the standard now become total and absolute sainthood? I dont get it.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Candycorn believes that because 14% of people out there operate without insurance, the same is likely true for businesses...and I am trying to explain to her that businesses have more reasons to keep their insurance up to date.

They have every incentive because if they have an incident without insurance they will be sued and lose their business.
Now, some businesses do not have insurance because they self-insure, maintaining reserves to pay off smaller claims.

Sure they would...just like those folks who poisoned the Elk River in WVA. Oh wait, they declared bankruptcy. Sorry; no soup for you.
Amazingly.....

By January 13, a Kanawha County judge had granted a temporary restraining order against Freedom Industries, and the number of lawsuits filed in the Kanawha County Circuit Court had risen to 19.[27][40] On January 17, 2014, Freedom Industries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, requiring a court–appointed trustee to run the company.[4]

However, according to the Charleston Gazette, a company "whose characteristics are strikingly similar to Freedom Industries," Lexycon LLC, registered as a business with the West Virginia secretary of state about two months after Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy. The company is registered at the same addresses and phone numbers as the former Freedom Industries, and is founded by a former Freedom executive.[41]

It's utterly hilarious how easy it is for a company to walk away from damages it inflicts.

I noticed you did not mention how the company under a new name succeeded...or if it succeeded.
Usually, when you need to change your name, you lose all contracts and have to start from scratch.

It's only been a year. I'm sure they'll be back to poisoning the water with impunity in no time.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

The office space comparison is not apples to oranges.
The point is.....not carrying insurance is just as bad for business as inappropriate office space.

If the store moves from queens to Tribeca....lets analyze this....lets make believe you are the owner of the store....

You announce the move. You sit down with your star buyer and your star buyer tells you she can not afford to commute to Tribeca. You, as a business owner needs to make a decision. "she is excellent. Knows what the customers like to see on the shelves. Always keeps inventory up to date". A smart business owner will give her the raise to compensate. A not so smart business owner will tell her "sorry, it is what it is" and lose her. Now that not so smart business owner has to HOPE that the move is not a flop because she just lost her star buyer...and has to hope that she finds another good one. A lot of "hope" involved in an effort to save a little money.

Now, a clerk comes to you and ALSO says to you that he can not afford the new commute. Again, an educated decision must be made. The clerk has been with you for a year. Has not made any progress. Still a clerk. Dispensable. HAs no skill better than the tens of thousands of unemployed clerks out there. What would you do? Well, sure, you will say 'I would keep him and pay him more because he has shown great dedication to me"....
Are you sure he showed dedication to you and it wasn't dedication to his paycheck? Are you sure he wouldn't walk in a heartbeat if someone paid him more money?
Are you sure you want to increase HIS salary as well as the BUYERS salary at the same time that you are incurring all of the moving costs coupled with the expected LOSS of business due to the new location and not the core "local clientele" coming in that you had at your old location?

Having never owned a business, you do not understand the thought process of a business owner. There is a lot that goes into most decisions. And money isn't the only thingt. By far.

It is apples and oranges. Because you do more business in lower MAN than in Hollis. There is a reason to move. In most cases, there isn't a clear ROI to over-insure your trucks.

I see what you're saying and I don't really disagree with you. But wouldn't the "smart" business owner not have all of his/her eggs in one basket...."If Jenny gets pregnant, I need someone else to do the buying...I'd better get someone else trained"? Then when you move, if Jenny doesn't like it, you have someone else trained; i.e. bench strength?

OK....how about this then...

WHy do some companies pay 75 a square foot to be on park avenue and 48th street as opposed to 30 a square foot to be on 11th avenue and 48th street.....about a half a mile difference.

It is not apples to oranges.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

So, again, what was the point that you were attempting to make by your post? What response were you looking for? Everything that you've said is common knowledge, period. All of us know the ties between the wealthy and politicians. I have said many times here that professional politicians are bought and paid for. That is common knowledge. All of us know about the influence of Lobbyists. And, the wealthy make their money regardless of which party does what. The wealthy don't sit around and wait for political favors. SO, again, what is your point in the root post, and what response were you looking for?

Yoi keep missing the point.
Dems claim to be for the underclass but also boast they are for the middle class. The only class they say they are not for are the upper 1%. But how can that even be?

 

[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?

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.

Giggle...duh. Yes I do. Quite a few people in fact.

Have you asked?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

The office space comparison is not apples to oranges.
The point is.....not carrying insurance is just as bad for business as inappropriate office space.

If the store moves from queens to Tribeca....lets analyze this....lets make believe you are the owner of the store....

You announce the move. You sit down with your star buyer and your star buyer tells you she can not afford to commute to Tribeca. You, as a business owner needs to make a decision. "she is excellent. Knows what the customers like to see on the shelves. Always keeps inventory up to date". A smart business owner will give her the raise to compensate. A not so smart business owner will tell her "sorry, it is what it is" and lose her. Now that not so smart business owner has to HOPE that the move is not a flop because she just lost her star buyer...and has to hope that she finds another good one. A lot of "hope" involved in an effort to save a little money.

Now, a clerk comes to you and ALSO says to you that he can not afford the new commute. Again, an educated decision must be made. The clerk has been with you for a year. Has not made any progress. Still a clerk. Dispensable. HAs no skill better than the tens of thousands of unemployed clerks out there. What would you do? Well, sure, you will say 'I would keep him and pay him more because he has shown great dedication to me"....
Are you sure he showed dedication to you and it wasn't dedication to his paycheck? Are you sure he wouldn't walk in a heartbeat if someone paid him more money?
Are you sure you want to increase HIS salary as well as the BUYERS salary at the same time that you are incurring all of the moving costs coupled with the expected LOSS of business due to the new location and not the core "local clientele" coming in that you had at your old location?

Having never owned a business, you do not understand the thought process of a business owner. There is a lot that goes into most decisions. And money isn't the only thingt. By far.

It is apples and oranges. Because you do more business in lower MAN than in Hollis. There is a reason to move. In most cases, there isn't a clear ROI to over-insure your trucks.

I see what you're saying and I don't really disagree with you. But wouldn't the "smart" business owner not have all of his/her eggs in one basket...."If Jenny gets pregnant, I need someone else to do the buying...I'd better get someone else trained"? Then when you move, if Jenny doesn't like it, you have someone else trained; i.e. bench strength?

we did not set the parameters of the example.

If it is a small store, one cant afford two buyers.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Are Democrats "for" the middle class? Yes.

Are Republicans "for" the middle class? Yes.

They just have different approaches. If they were not so partisan, stubborn and narcissistic, they could almost certainly the find "middle" (pun intended) ground that could identify and create the conditions in which the middle class could return.

Anyone holding their breath on that? Not me.

.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Giggle...duh. Yes I do. Quite a few people in fact.

Have you asked?

Actually, no. I never do ask...but my guess is 14% of the people I know do not have insurance!

 

[Sonny Clark]

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?

So, again, what was the point that you were attempting to make by your post? What response were you looking for? Everything that you've said is common knowledge, period. All of us know the ties between the wealthy and politicians. I have said many times here that professional politicians are bought and paid for. That is common knowledge. All of us know about the influence of Lobbyists. And, the wealthy make their money regardless of which party does what. The wealthy don't sit around and wait for political favors. SO, again, what is your point in the root post, and what response were you looking for?

Rabid was just trying to rag on Democrats and Liberals...he's a one trick pony who is old, tired and just plain sullen that he and his buddies are fading into the margins of history.

Thanks. I understand. I appreciate the heads-up.