Are Democrats for The Middle Class?

[candycorn]

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.

Do you forecast you'll make more money on Park than 11th?
Do you forecast having more insurance on your trucks than necessary will increase your revenues?

 

[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.

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!

Well, ask. Then ask if they know anyone.
I'm curious....do you think any of your employees (while you owned the company) did pot?

 

[candycorn]

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.

But surely someone else there has to know how to do it...right?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Do you forecast you'll make more money on Park than 11th?
Do you forecast having more insurance on your trucks than necessary will increase your revenues?

to question 1....yes.
to question 2....a company does not look at revenue alone. It looks at revenue less expenses. Profit. And having more insure=ance ensures less losses and therefore likely more profit

 

[Jarhead]

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.

But surely someone else there has to know how to do it...right?

When I owned my first consulting firm, my very first employee I ever hired was hired as my assistant. I taught her everything I knew so if I were to become ill, or need to take a day off, the business would not suffer. Likewise, everything she did, as time went on, I learned to do, so if she had to take time off, I could do it. When she left to have a baby, she was out of the office for nearly 2 months, and all was covered.

So to answer your question....a smart business owner always has coverage....and if a small firm, that coverage is the business owner.

By the way, she bought my company from me when I had enough of that industry...and she and I are still the closest of friends. I am the Godfather of her first child who now works for her.

 

[candycorn]

I'm sure they do.

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

Apples and oranges comparison.


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.

Do you forecast you'll make more money on Park than 11th?
Do you forecast having more insurance on your trucks than necessary will increase your revenues?

to question 1....yes.
to question 2....a company does not look at revenue alone. It looks at revenue less expenses. Profit. And having more insure=ance ensures less losses and therefore likely more profit

To Question 1: My point is that there is something "in it" for the business owners for volunteering to incur the increased costs.

To Question 2: Unless you're having a rash of truck wrecks, reckless drivers, or plain over officious policing, you're likely to experience none of that on your rigs...agreed? In other words, the over-insurance my never pay off.
And even if you did, you're paying that now to avoid paying more later.

I can't blame the business owner in either case really. You've got to do what is best for your business.
Usually that comes in light years ahead of what is best for the employees however.

 

[Jarhead]

I have a question for you Candycorn........and I believe your answer will answer many of your own questions...and likely put an explanation point on my side of the discussion....

If NYS were to pass a law saying that the owner of a car NO LONGER needs to have insurance....although it is highly recommended that you do....

Who do you think would be more likely to stop carrying insurance.....

Someone with an income of 25,000 or someone with an income of 500,000?

Obviously, the one making 25,000.

But then why would the one making 500,000 invest 4,000 a year in insurance if it is not the law?

Becuase the one who makes 500,000 has a lot to lose if they injured someone in a serious accident.

Well, then why would someone making only 25,000 be afraid to lose a lot if there were a serious accident.

Because he/she has a lot less to lose.

Same holds true when looking at business owners.....and if an S-corp...they can lose everything...business AND personal.

 

[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?

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?

Try to understand what politics is all about. Politics is about greasing the wheel that squeaks the loudest. They gear everything towards getting re-elected. The class that needs attention, is the class that gets attention. And, it's different each election cycle. When the economy is in the tank, politicians play to the poor and needy. When the wealthy are losing money, politicians play to the wealthy. All of this is common knowledge. Look what happened when Wall Street needed a bailout. Look what happened when Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid" platform. Please try to understand that politics is a game, nothing more. They will play to whatever class needs sympathy and kind words. Also, please understand that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is so narrow, that you'd have trouble slipping a piece of paper between them.

Professional politicians will do whatever they have to do to climb the political ladder, repay favors, get a pat on the back, and put down the other party. It's nothing more than a game, honestly it is. So, to address your post yet again, Democrats will play to the ones ( class ) they feel with give them the greatest positive response, especially right before election time. One time it may be the wealthy that they feel needs help ( sympathy, understanding ), and yet another time it may be the less fortunate, the elderly, or the Vets. Professional politicians will say and do whatever they have to do in order to survive in Washington. All of them treasure their position in "The Washington Brotherhood".

I responded to your root post the way it read. What else were you expecting? What kind of response were you looking for? Did I not address the position of the Democrats in relation to the wealthy?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Do you forecast you'll make more money on Park than 11th?
Do you forecast having more insurance on your trucks than necessary will increase your revenues?

to question 1....yes.
to question 2....a company does not look at revenue alone. It looks at revenue less expenses. Profit. And having more insure=ance ensures less losses and therefore likely more profit

To Question 1: My point is that there is something "in it" for the business owners for volunteering to incur the increased costs.

To Question 2: Unless you're having a rash of truck wrecks, reckless drivers, or plain over officious policing, you're likely to experience none of that on your rigs...agreed? In other words, the over-insurance my never pay off.
And even if you did, you're paying that now to avoid paying more later.

I can't blame the business owner in either case really. You've got to do what is best for your business.
Usually that comes in light years ahead of what is best for the employees however.

Actually, it is not the amount of wrecks....all yo9u needs is one.

And if you have a multitude of trucks, the likelihood of a serious accident increases with the more trucks you have...and one accident with one truck can result in a multi million dollar law suit.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Try to understand what politics is all about. Politics is about greasing the wheel that squeaks the loudest. They gear everything towards getting re-elected. The class that needs attention, is the class that gets attention. And, it's different each election cycle. When the economy is in the tank, politicians play to the poor and needy. When the wealthy are losing money, politicians play to the wealthy. All of this is common knowledge. Look what happened when Wall Street needed a bailout. Look what happened when Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid" platform. Please try to understand that politics is a game, nothing more. They will play to whatever class needs sympathy and kind words. Also, please understand that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is so narrow, that you'd have trouble slipping a piece of paper between them.

Professional politicians will do whatever they have to do to climb the political ladder, repay favors, get a pat on the back, and put down the other party. It's nothing more than a game, honestly it is. So, to address your post yet again, Democrats will play to the ones ( class ) they feel with give them the greatest positive response, especially right before election time. One time it may be the wealthy that they feel needs help ( sympathy, understanding ), and yet another time it may be the less fortunate, the elderly, or the Vets. Professional politicians will say and do whatever they have to do in order to survive in Washington. All of them treasure their position in "The Washington Brotherhood".

I responded to your root post the way it read. What else were you expecting? What kind of response were you looking for? Did I not address the position of the Democrats in relation to the wealthy?

Which candidate ran on giving more attention to the upper class? Please cite the campaign.

 

[candycorn]

I have a question for you Candycorn........and I believe your answer will answer many of your own questions...and likely put an explanation point on my side of the discussion....

If NYS were to pass a law saying that the owner of a car NO LONGER needs to have insurance....although it is highly recommended that you do....

Who do you think would be more likely to stop carrying insurance.....

Someone with an income of 25,000 or someone with an income of 500,000?

Obviously, the one making 25,000.

But then why would the one making 500,000 invest 4,000 a year in insurance if it is not the law?

Becuase the one who makes 500,000 has a lot to lose if they injured someone in a serious accident.

Well, then why would someone making only 25,000 be afraid to lose a lot if there were a serious accident.

Because he/she has a lot less to lose.

Same holds true when looking at business owners.....and if an S-corp...they can lose everything...business AND personal.

You can ask the questions or answer them. Doing both doesn't leave me with much to do.
The guy with deeper pockets has more to lose but wouldn't necessarily miss the $4,000. I get that.
The guy with more shallow pockets has less to lose since his personal wealth is so much smaller. I get that as well.

What was the question?

 

[Jarhead]

You know, Candy (if I may), I own my house outright. But during the 20 years I had a mortgage, I was forced to buy home insurance...a requirement of the bank. During those 20 years, I did not need to make a single claim. Not one. I spent well over 50KI in insurance over that time, and not a single claim in return.When I paid off the mortgage, I no longer had to carry insurance. And I actually considered not. But my senses kicked in (my wife) and she insisted we still carry insurance. And what happened 4 years later? Super Storm Sandy. Lost my entire first level, parts of my roof, my pool was history. My fence was found 5 blocks away...floated away.

Smart people, like my wife, do not take chances.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Do you forecast you'll make more money on Park than 11th?
Do you forecast having more insurance on your trucks than necessary will increase your revenues?

to question 1....yes.
to question 2....a company does not look at revenue alone. It looks at revenue less expenses. Profit. And having more insure=ance ensures less losses and therefore likely more profit

To Question 1: My point is that there is something "in it" for the business owners for volunteering to incur the increased costs.

To Question 2: Unless you're having a rash of truck wrecks, reckless drivers, or plain over officious policing, you're likely to experience none of that on your rigs...agreed? In other words, the over-insurance my never pay off.
And even if you did, you're paying that now to avoid paying more later.

I can't blame the business owner in either case really. You've got to do what is best for your business.
Usually that comes in light years ahead of what is best for the employees however.

Actually, it is not the amount of wrecks....all yo9u needs is one.

And if you have a multitude of trucks, the likelihood of a serious accident increases with the more trucks you have...and one accident with one truck can result in a multi million dollar law suit.

Sure...and for a real life example of how corporate America works, I would like to point you to this month's Texas Monthly magazine.

The Greatest Lawyer Who Ever Lived Texas Monthly

The story is not so much about Corporate America than it is the lawyer suing the company. Its a real hoot.

I've enjoyed the back and fourth but I've got to go serve my corporate masters now....lol. Nice back and fourth.

Rabid...I own you.

 

[Jarhead]

I have a question for you Candycorn........and I believe your answer will answer many of your own questions...and likely put an explanation point on my side of the discussion....

If NYS were to pass a law saying that the owner of a car NO LONGER needs to have insurance....although it is highly recommended that you do....

Who do you think would be more likely to stop carrying insurance.....

Someone with an income of 25,000 or someone with an income of 500,000?

Obviously, the one making 25,000.

But then why would the one making 500,000 invest 4,000 a year in insurance if it is not the law?

Becuase the one who makes 500,000 has a lot to lose if they injured someone in a serious accident.

Well, then why would someone making only 25,000 be afraid to lose a lot if there were a serious accident.

Because he/she has a lot less to lose.

Same holds true when looking at business owners.....and if an S-corp...they can lose everything...business AND personal.

You can ask the questions or answer them. Doing both doesn't leave me with much to do.
The guy with deeper pockets has more to lose but wouldn't necessarily miss the $4,000. I get that.
The guy with more shallow pockets has less to lose since his personal wealth is so much smaller. I get that as well.

What was the question?

I guess it wasn't as much a question as it was a point to be made.

And the point I was making was that business owners have a lot to lose. They are less likely to go with the bare minimum than I believe you think.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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?

Try to understand what politics is all about. Politics is about greasing the wheel that squeaks the loudest. They gear everything towards getting re-elected. The class that needs attention, is the class that gets attention. And, it's different each election cycle. When the economy is in the tank, politicians play to the poor and needy. When the wealthy are losing money, politicians play to the wealthy. All of this is common knowledge. Look what happened when Wall Street needed a bailout. Look what happened when Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid" platform. Please try to understand that politics is a game, nothing more. They will play to whatever class needs sympathy and kind words. Also, please understand that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is so narrow, that you'd have trouble slipping a piece of paper between them.

Professional politicians will do whatever they have to do to climb the political ladder, repay favors, get a pat on the back, and put down the other party. It's nothing more than a game, honestly it is. So, to address your post yet again, Democrats will play to the ones ( class ) they feel with give them the greatest positive response, especially right before election time. One time it may be the wealthy that they feel needs help ( sympathy, understanding ), and yet another time it may be the less fortunate, the elderly, or the Vets. Professional politicians will say and do whatever they have to do in order to survive in Washington. All of them treasure their position in "The Washington Brotherhood".

I responded to your root post the way it read. What else were you expecting? What kind of response were you looking for? Did I not address the position of the Democrats in relation to the wealthy?

Which candidate ran on giving more attention to the upper class? Please cite the campaign.

I give up, but I'm sure that you'll tell me. And, like I have already said, they will cater to the ones they feel will do them the most good. Also, do not Republicans do the same? Name a party that doesn't cater to the ones they feel will give them the greater support? All politicians cater to the group, class, etc., that will give them the greater support, they all do it, just common knowledge. Do you believe that the Republicans would reject helping the top 1% if they thought for one second that they would greatly benefit by showing them favor? Use common sense and logic here, please. In addition, try to understand that professional politicians are professional politicians, and do what professional politicians do, regardless of party. They all play the same game, just wear a different jersey during game time.

All professional politicians are on the take, owe favors, pay-back favors, and dance to the tunes played by Lobbyists, the influential, the powerful, and the wealthy. If that were not true, they wouldn't be seated in Washington. Democrats and Republicans are professional politicians, and I have described them above.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Try to understand what politics is all about. Politics is about greasing the wheel that squeaks the loudest. They gear everything towards getting re-elected. The class that needs attention, is the class that gets attention. And, it's different each election cycle. When the economy is in the tank, politicians play to the poor and needy. When the wealthy are losing money, politicians play to the wealthy. All of this is common knowledge. Look what happened when Wall Street needed a bailout. Look what happened when Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid" platform. Please try to understand that politics is a game, nothing more. They will play to whatever class needs sympathy and kind words. Also, please understand that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is so narrow, that you'd have trouble slipping a piece of paper between them.

Professional politicians will do whatever they have to do to climb the political ladder, repay favors, get a pat on the back, and put down the other party. It's nothing more than a game, honestly it is. So, to address your post yet again, Democrats will play to the ones ( class ) they feel with give them the greatest positive response, especially right before election time. One time it may be the wealthy that they feel needs help ( sympathy, understanding ), and yet another time it may be the less fortunate, the elderly, or the Vets. Professional politicians will say and do whatever they have to do in order to survive in Washington. All of them treasure their position in "The Washington Brotherhood".

I responded to your root post the way it read. What else were you expecting? What kind of response were you looking for? Did I not address the position of the Democrats in relation to the wealthy?

Which candidate ran on giving more attention to the upper class? Please cite the campaign.

I give up, but I'm sure that you'll tell me

Your surrender is acknowledged here.
There arent any, is the answer. No pol runs on benefitting the upper class.
The mystery is why Dems run on benefitting the middle class when their actual constituency is a rag tag of special interest groups, some under class, some upper class.
It's actually no mystery, as I mentioned. 90% of people think of themselves as middle class and that's where the votes are.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Not much doubt about who would support that. The party of the rich. The republicans.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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?

Try to understand what politics is all about. Politics is about greasing the wheel that squeaks the loudest. They gear everything towards getting re-elected. The class that needs attention, is the class that gets attention. And, it's different each election cycle. When the economy is in the tank, politicians play to the poor and needy. When the wealthy are losing money, politicians play to the wealthy. All of this is common knowledge. Look what happened when Wall Street needed a bailout. Look what happened when Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid" platform. Please try to understand that politics is a game, nothing more. They will play to whatever class needs sympathy and kind words. Also, please understand that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is so narrow, that you'd have trouble slipping a piece of paper between them.

Professional politicians will do whatever they have to do to climb the political ladder, repay favors, get a pat on the back, and put down the other party. It's nothing more than a game, honestly it is. So, to address your post yet again, Democrats will play to the ones ( class ) they feel with give them the greatest positive response, especially right before election time. One time it may be the wealthy that they feel needs help ( sympathy, understanding ), and yet another time it may be the less fortunate, the elderly, or the Vets. Professional politicians will say and do whatever they have to do in order to survive in Washington. All of them treasure their position in "The Washington Brotherhood".

I responded to your root post the way it read. What else were you expecting? What kind of response were you looking for? Did I not address the position of the Democrats in relation to the wealthy?

Which candidate ran on giving more attention to the upper class? Please cite the campaign.

I give up, but I'm sure that you'll tell me

Your surrender is acknowledged here.
There arent any, is the answer. No pol runs on benefitting the upper class.
The mystery is why Dems run on benefitting the middle class when their actual constituency is a rag tag of special interest groups, some under class, some upper class.
It's actually no mystery, as I mentioned. 90% of people think of themselves as middle class and that's where the votes are.

FYI - There was no "surrender". Now, do not Republicans do the exact same thing? Do not Republicans cater to the ones they feel will give them the greater support? Name a party that doesn't cater to the ones offering the greater support? Can you? So, as I have repeatedly said, both parties play the exact same game. So, your point about Democrats catering to the top 1% becomes a moot point. Do Republicans snub the top 1%?

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Try to understand what politics is all about. Politics is about greasing the wheel that squeaks the loudest. They gear everything towards getting re-elected. The class that needs attention, is the class that gets attention. And, it's different each election cycle. When the economy is in the tank, politicians play to the poor and needy. When the wealthy are losing money, politicians play to the wealthy. All of this is common knowledge. Look what happened when Wall Street needed a bailout. Look what happened when Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid" platform. Please try to understand that politics is a game, nothing more. They will play to whatever class needs sympathy and kind words. Also, please understand that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is so narrow, that you'd have trouble slipping a piece of paper between them.

Professional politicians will do whatever they have to do to climb the political ladder, repay favors, get a pat on the back, and put down the other party. It's nothing more than a game, honestly it is. So, to address your post yet again, Democrats will play to the ones ( class ) they feel with give them the greatest positive response, especially right before election time. One time it may be the wealthy that they feel needs help ( sympathy, understanding ), and yet another time it may be the less fortunate, the elderly, or the Vets. Professional politicians will say and do whatever they have to do in order to survive in Washington. All of them treasure their position in "The Washington Brotherhood".

I responded to your root post the way it read. What else were you expecting? What kind of response were you looking for? Did I not address the position of the Democrats in relation to the wealthy?

Which candidate ran on giving more attention to the upper class? Please cite the campaign.

I give up, but I'm sure that you'll tell me

Your surrender is acknowledged here.
There arent any, is the answer. No pol runs on benefitting the upper class.
The mystery is why Dems run on benefitting the middle class when their actual constituency is a rag tag of special interest groups, some under class, some upper class.
It's actually no mystery, as I mentioned. 90% of people think of themselves as middle class and that's where the votes are.

FYI - There was no "surrender". Now, do not Republicans do the exact same thing? Do not Republicans cater to the ones they feel will give them the greater support? Name a party that doesn't cater to the ones offering the greater support? Can you? So, as I have repeatedly said, both parties play the exact same game. So, your point about Democrats catering to the top 1% becomes a moot point. Do Republicans snub the top 1%?

Republicans actually pursue policies that favor the middle class. They are not a collection of special interests, like the Dems.
But this isnt about Repiublicans and your deflection from your defeat is noted.

 

[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.

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.

That might be true in some cases except where there has been tort reform like here in Texas. There are rules that say that no matter how grievous or intentional, or expensive the damage was, there is a limit to any judgment against the business that caused the injury. Pay so much of the damage and you don't have to worry about the rest.