Stand With The Wall Street Protesters

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I have my doubts about your math, but Warren Buffet is in that 1%. Is that irony as well? I think it's kind of funny that making a mark and protesting are mutually-exclusive concepts in your mind. I can think of tons of people who have protested and made their marks.

Anti-semitism? Ugly. Where?

I've heard comment after comment in videos of these protesters, and thats where you get the anti semitism. They blame the Jews who control everything....


And, if Warren Buffet is protesting, then that is also very ironic, yes. Protesting against something, and contributing to something, are mutually exclusive in MY eyes at least.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Protesting against something, and contributing to something, are mutually exclusive in MY eyes at least.

They would seem so.

However, as you are aware, rr, even Barack Obama is showing support for the protesters (no doubt trying to garner their vote), even though quite a number of very large banks contributed very large sums to his 2008 campaign, and some are even contributing to his 2010 campaign. Mutually exclusive? Or conflict of interest?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

They would seem so.

However, as you are aware, rr, even Barack Obama is showing support for the protesters (no doubt trying to garner their vote), even though quite a number of very large banks contributed very large sums to his 2008 campaign, and some are even contributing to his 2010 campaign. Mutually exclusive? Or conflict of interest?

What he is doing, is hypocritical, conflict of interest, and many other words. And if they fall for it, then that's that.

What's even funnier to me, are the governments around the world, and political parties that are also supporting them. You know, like China, and the Nazi party, and the communist party.

And how many small businesses are they hurting right now with their protest? Or, the guy who owns the park they are ruining?

[MariconesUnited]

We're not against people enriching themselves and neither is Buffett. He just wants to contribute his fair share towards society. And he wants others in his tax bracket to do the same. What is it that he's contributing towards that is in conflict with the movement?

EDIT: I would love to see some of those videos. Would like to make up my own mind about them.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Interesting article. Although I have to say that it is rather misleading in some ways.

For exmaple, it talks about the "top 1%" and then it talks about CEOs.

This is misleading because CEOs do not represent the average person in the top 1% of the population. CEOs are a much rarer species.

Let's put it this way. Suppose the average big corporation in the US (something like American Airlines, or Cargill, or Bank of America, or Caterpillar) has 100,000 employees. The CEO is the top guy, out of 100,000 employees.

So it is much more accurate to say that the CEO represents the top 0.001% of the population, rather than the top 1%. In other words, the CEO category is 1000 times more exclusive than the 1% category.

The average guy in your top 1% is probably just some ordinary doctor or lawyer.

The top 1% are in business, medicine, and finance. When you reduce it to top .1% -- the people making serious money, not a piddly half million per year -- it's almost entirely finance.

60% of the top 1% are in business or finance, so the "average guy" actually isn't a doctor or a lawyer. And I don't think that the average doctor or lawyer is part of the top 1%.

How the top 1 percent made its money in two charts - The Washington Post

In other words, it’s a more complex and heterogeneous group than the image of the 1 percent that’s been popularized by the 99 percenters. That being said, when you look at the very richest Americans — the top 0.1 percent of households by income — then business executives and financial professions do take the lion’s share, and they’ve been pulling away from the rest much faster.

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I want to address this; I have done a bit of research in this area. One thing is in general if you look at the top 1% or top 10% the amount of taxes they pay is proportional to the wealth they own. The top 1% pays roughly 35% of income taxes; the top 20% pay roughly 95% of income tax.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poor can't get any poorer, they have zero or many times a negative net worth. That is unlikely to change anytime soon. Just by inflation of money alone the wealthiest will be getting wealthier over time so of course there will always be a growing discrepancy between them.

Now just for full disclosure, I do believe like Warren Buffet that the super rich do not pay their equitable share of taxes, although you have to look at much finer gradation of wealth to see the discrepancy. It’s the wealthiest top .3% where you start getting into the population (IMHO) that aren't paying their equitable share of taxes.

That isn't really the point. The point is that the US government is meant to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Yet it is increasingly controlled by the super-rich -- i.e. that top .3% -- that hold the kind of money to heavily influence government.

I am not really worried about doctors and lawyers controlling our lives, honestly; I know a lot of doctors and they're not the ones backing their political interests with millions of dollars.

In the US we also have corporate personhood, so a corporation can make campaign donations just like a person could. And how much tax do these multibillion dollar corporations pay..?

This is what we see happening in Ohio and Wisconsin: a turn against unions, an attempt to reduce what security middle- and working-class people have in order to further increase profits for the companies they work for.

The next question is what to do about it. Raise the taxes on the top income bracket? Something else? I do have an idea on how to address it but wonder what others think we should do.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Overturn Citizens United v. FEC. Those two things in themselves will help.

Last, is the American dream dead? I know here in the Midwest where I live you can get an absolutely beautiful large house in a well to do community for roughly 180,000. This is the kind of home that people in many other countries would consider to be huge by their standards. Two people making 35,000 a year can afford that kind of home here. Two people without a college degree can work their way up to 35,000 a year. You could work at McDonald's and reach roughly that salary by working your way to store manager over say 10 years. Is it a little tougher to carve out your piece of the American pie now a days? Hell yes. Is it still doable? That’s a big yes as well.

I live here too and I have never, ever, ever seen anyone who wasn't making six figures living in one of these places. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, I just question your McDonald's logic.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

We're not against people enriching themselves and neither is Buffett. He just wants to contribute his fair share towards society. And he wants others in his tax bracket to do the same. What is it that he's contributing towards that is in conflict with the movement?

He is one of the most successful stock market investors of the world. These protestors are against people like him. He IS the large corporation. He IS the corporation helped out by the government. He made his money on the backs of these people. It's funny, that while he wants everyone to be taxed more, he isn't given money to the government to equal what he feels is fair taxation. They never do pay more to the IRS tho. They still have TONS of loop holes. It's all a bunch of nonsense. All the 1%'s supporting the protests, are all hypocrites.

[Criseyde]

Also, re: banks and the fact that they've repaid their bailout money: well, it's not just that they needed a bailout. They also laundered money, perpetuated fraud, and sent the US into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It's not really about the bailout -- the only reason they got it was because it would be worse for this country if they hadn't. Why hasn't anyone been brought up on charges? Why did they get bonuses? Why weren't they fired? It was either gross negligence or criminal activity, neither of which warrants getting paid more and keeping their jobs...

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

No. The big picture is the big picture. Not mine or yours or theirs. We're thinking in terms of general well-being. I think those people at the protests are trying to change the big picture. And you know who's got an entitlement mentality? Goldman Sachs. They live it and get away with it too.

Then the big picture is (as far as I see it) - I have chosen to spend time, money and effort developing myself to adapt to tough market conditions and develop a plan to join the 1%

That is a choice I made, I could quite easily choose to spend time not doing that and having a job that can potentially be taken away if/when a recession happens.

I still see a lot of opportunity out there for anyone who wants to go out and grab it. That to me is the big picture

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

60% of the top 1% are in business or finance, so the "average guy" actually isn't a doctor or a lawyer. And I don't think that the average doctor or lawyer is part of the top 1%.

Look carefully at your article again.

In the top 1%, there are more doctors than finance professionals.

Also, I think you might not be appreciating the broadness of the term "business". It could easily encompass many successful self-employed people (entrepreneurs and the like).

For example, let's say I am a chef and the owner of several restaurants and I have a stake in a private vineyard. Definitely that could place me in the top 1%, and I would be classified as "business", but at the same time, I am most certainly not the kind of business that could influence the govt with my political donations or lobbyists.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Look carefully at your article again.

In the top 1%, there are more doctors than finance professionals.

Also, I think you might not be appreciating the broadness of the term "business". It could easily encompass many successful self-employed people (entrepreneurs and the like).

For example, let's say I am a chef and the owner of several restaurants and I have a stake in a private vineyard. Definitely that could place me in the top 1%, and I would be classified as "business", but at the same time, I am most certainly not the kind of business that could influence the govt with my political donations or lobbyists.

Sorry, I used "business" because I didn't want to check the article again to see what they called it -- "executives, managers, supervisors (nonfinance)." That category + finance is 45%. Doctors are 15%. I lump them together because it's those two categories of people that have demonstrated their staggering power and influence over the US economy and political landscape over the past few years, and it's that power/influence that people are protesting.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Also, re: banks and the fact that they've repaid their bailout money: well, it's not just that they needed a bailout. They also laundered money, perpetuated fraud, and sent the US into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It's not really about the bailout -- the only reason they got it was because it would be worse for this country if they hadn't. Why hasn't anyone been brought up on charges? Why did they get bonuses? Why weren't they fired? It was either gross negligence or criminal activity, neither of which warrants getting paid more and keeping their jobs...

Ok you used a lot of terms very loosely there and there are plenty of inaccuracies. Won't bother to point them all out, but certainly your prosecutors did try to prosecute - judges acquitted the bankers because of failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt - and certainly plenty of bankers were retrenched or fired - one example being John Thain, CEO Merrill Lynch.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Ok you used a lot of terms very loosely there and there are plenty of inaccuracies. Won't bother to point them all out, but certainly your prosecutors did try to prosecute - judges acquitted the bankers because of failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt - and certainly plenty of bankers were retrenched or fired - one example being John Thain, CEO Merrill Lynch.

Okay, thanks for the correction. So have there been any real consequences?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Then the big picture is (as far as I see it) - I have chosen to spend time, money and effort developing myself to adapt to tough market conditions and develop a plan to join the 1%

That is a choice I made, I could quite easily choose to spend time not doing that and having a job that can potentially be taken away if/when a recession happens.

I still see a lot of opportunity out there for anyone who wants to go out and grab it. That to me is the big picture

There's tons of ''I'' in your post. You're not getting it. Sorry.

I'll elaborate...The opportunities that are there are gradually decreasing over time. And the very wealthy are not paying their fair share and influencing government in ways that are a detriment to the majority. You need to look outside of your personal situation to see these things happening.

[Acting Like Godot]

Sure. I deal with some of those consequences everyday.

Some of them are as follows. In an attempt to show that they were doing something useful, some of your politicians made a big hue and cry about how evil the banks were. They then passed gigantic new laws and regulations to be imposed on banks. It was all done in a big hurry - the legislation had mistakes; many parts contained ambiguities; many issues were simply not thought through clearly; many points may well lead to the financial system becoming mire dangerous rather than safer.

However, because of the need to do the political song & dance, the legislation was forced through anyway.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

However, because of the need to do the political song & dance, the legislation was forced through anyway.

Yup. This pretty much nails it in my own opinion, also.

The reason why the pols have to do the song and dance, is to maintain an air of credibility among the American people, by showing that they're doing something, even though that something is ineffective. They really can't do anything effective, because they'd ultimately be biting the hand that feeds them.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

There's tons of ''I'' in your post. You're not getting it. Sorry.

I'll elaborate...The opportunities that are there are gradually decreasing over time. And the very wealthy are not paying their fair share and influencing government in ways that are a detriment to the majority. You need to look outside of your personal situation to see these things happening.

Whatever it is I'm glad I don't get it as it doesn't sound like a useful approach to anything. I will never feel sympathy for anyone in a first world country who complains that they think its unfair that other people have more than them.

I regularly donate to people in third world countries who have no control over their circumstances.

Life can be tough and you've got to look after your own cargo. I'm sorry buy that's my view of the world. I've been on the other side of the fence and am looking at it in a month or so's time.

People see things differently depending on their beliefs, values and experience.

If you want to create change then put yourself in a position to do so.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

First of all I'm not certain individualism is the cause of all this. But it certainly facilitates the perpetuation of this growing inequality. Regarding property, I can understand that it's not obvious to you or most everyone. It's just one of those concepts we're all born into and take for granted without questioning. The source of most if not all conflict is the belief that this piece of land or that material over there is ''mine'' not ''yours''. That stems from the belief in property. We wouldn't have fought over land if we just accepted our differences and accepted the land for what it was. We wouldn't be competing against one another if it wasn't for the belief that we should acquire more to be more happy (the pursuit of happiness and the accumulation of wealth go hand-in-hand together in the capitalist mindset). I hope I'm making more sense to you now.

Now when you set your caveat I need to ask you one thing: Is the status quo everything you're asking of my solution? If not then maybe you should take a deeper look at your concern for equality. Personally, I don't believe equality to be a good objective. As long as the concept of property exists. People who have lived in communist societies mostly report on their losses of freedoms and governmental abuses. I believe what is realistic right now is to seek equality of opportunity. Tax the wealthy their fair share first of all and close all the loopholes. Nationalize privately-owned prisons, which are known to have incentives to imprison people, guilty or innocent (see Michael Moore's Capitalism: a love story for more on this). Create incentives for people to start their own small businesses, like tax credits. There needs to be more small businesses as they are the ones who hire people and really help the economy grow.

It's what I have for now. What about you? Do you see the problem being raised? Do you have any solutions to it?

Can I just say thank you for responding in an insightful and well mannered voice. I appreciate the tone of your response. I'll write a detailed response tomorrow morning when I have some off time again. But one quick question. You mention the rich should pay their 'fair share' of taxes.How would you define what their fair share is?

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

who are you talking about here exactly?

Mostly the talk radio people..are the ones who are belly aching.. the protesters are using their first amendment rights as well...this is what democracy ought to look like.. people voicing opinions etc.. I think at the end of the day we have a very very divided country and that is good for no one.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

Mostly the talk radio people..

Some of these protesters are shitting on cop cars, stepping on American flags, and yelling out anti Semitic rhetoric. You can agree with free speech, and the allowing of people to assemble peacefully, but that doesn't mean you have to be nice to them, or about them.

Look at the Tea Party people. Everyone makes fun of them too. Calls them terrorists and anti American . You think it's just against these protestors?

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Look at the Tea Party people. Everyone makes fun of them too. Calls them terrorists and anti American . You think it's just against these protestors?

You know, I have long held out hope that the Tea Party and OWS would join forces. Then, just maybe, something could be done.

But, unfortunately, as garentee noted, the country is really polarized (just what the politicians want, mind you). The Tea Party blames only government for all the problems; the "occupiers" blame the corporations. It's really both, imo, in the collusion of both, and until that is recognized by both camps, there will remain divisions in this country, if it doesn't ultimately descend into anarchy (which increasingly looks like a viable option to many).

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I live here too and I have never, ever, ever seen anyone who wasn't making six figures living in one of these places. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, I just question your McDonald's logic.

Oh I don't disagree with that either. It’s very very rare for two people with that type of income to do that but the point is the opportunity still exists. It’s doable. I know it’s doable from personal experience. I could post a typical monthly budget if you want to show you the numbers could work. The caveat is that instead of living relatively frugal lives and living within your means most are not doing that.

I can guarantee repealing the Bush tax cuts would do almost nothing to change the rate of growth of inequality between the wealthy and poor. By the way I'm not necessarily against that I just don’t see any way it would have any meaningful effect on the numbers. Second I agree with limiting corporate influence in politics but I'm still unsure on how to do this exactly. It’s a tough issue to handle.

[Peterw]

I think the governments are the problem now. This borrowing has got really out of hand and the chickens are home to roost.

The main beef people have here (UK) is government cuts which is due to huge overspending and government debt. Maybe the banks should bail out the government this time round?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

You know, I have long held out hope that the Tea Party and OWS would join forces. Then, just maybe, something could be done.

But, unfortunately, as garentee noted, the country is really polarized (just what the politicians want, mind you). The Tea Party blames only government for all the problems; the "occupiers" blame the corporations. It's really both, imo, in the collusion of both, and until that is recognized by both camps, there will remain divisions in this country, if it doesn't ultimately descend into anarchy (which increasingly looks like a viable option to many).

I think the tea party has a better chance. They have set goals. They know what they want and where they are going. And they picked something that can actually be accomplished. Going after corps ain't gonna do it. Even if it's also their fault. Going after government is the only way to do it, because if get government to no longer have a stake in business, then business won't be able to have the power over government. But what does it get you to go after business? Unless they are losing money, they aren't going to give a crap about your silly little protests. The only ones getting hurt by this are the small business in the area.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Some of these protesters are shitting on cop cars, stepping on American flags, and yelling out anti Semitic rhetoric. You can agree with free speech, and the allowing of people to assemble peacefully, but that doesn't mean you have to be nice to them, or about them.

Look at the Tea Party people. Everyone makes fun of them too. Calls them terrorists and anti American . You think it's just against these protestors?

Short answer here probably more later..I agree with you that that kind of behavior is abhorrent and more detriment to a movement then a benefit..What it comes down to is that we are very divided in this country and that is more dangerous than any movement can be. Gotta go . more later I am sure..

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I think the tea party has a better chance. They have set goals. They know what they want and where they are going. And they picked something that can actually be accomplished. Going after corps ain't gonna do it. Even if it's also their fault. Going after government is the only way to do it, because if get government to no longer have a stake in business, then business won't be able to have the power over government. But what does it get you to go after business? Unless they are losing money, they aren't going to give a crap about your silly little protests. The only ones getting hurt by this are the small business in the area.

I agree.

A friend of mine were discussing this last weekend, and he said something that rather stuck. He said, "going after the corporations is really pointless, because they can't hold a gun to your head to buy their product. Government can." And yes, in the meantime, the small businesses (and, I would add, those that they would employ), are the ones that get the shaft. Every time.

But, I would add that while it's fruitless to go after corporations, I can't see them as entirely blameless in the corruption, particularly the banks, which quite effectively holds government in it's pocket.

[rawxstasy]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Then the big picture is (as far as I see it) - I have chosen to spend time, money and effort developing myself to adapt to tough market conditions and develop a plan to join the 1%

That is a choice I made, I could quite easily choose to spend time not doing that and having a job that can potentially be taken away if/when a recession happens.

I still see a lot of opportunity out there for anyone who wants to go out and grab it. That to me is the big picture

I think the same you do Peter. In the middle of the worst recession, I was able to secure three good paying jobs for myself. I credit this to having the same mindset as you. However, I don't believe that we think like most of the population. This is why there are few rich people - because they think differently from the majority of the population.

It's not enough to say to someone "well you have to find the opportunity" People were fed a lie - that if you get a college degree and work hard you can get a job in the field that you studied. The 2008 finanical crisis changed all that. If you have 100 people trying for one job - how is that opportunity? If you say to those people at the protests - "well you just have to work whatever job you can find." I'm sure a lot of them would respond with "I worked hard and am now in a lot of debt for a degree that is now worthless."

Life shouldn't be like this.

Even if the protestors get off their "asses" and work at McDonalds' how long is it going to take them to pay off the $25,000 ( in average) student loan debt they've accumulated? After paying for basics, what is going to be left for debt payoff or savings? What is going to happen if they get sick and can't afford treatment because McDonalds' doesn't provide health insurance?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by rawxstasy

I think the same you do Peter. In the middle of the worst recession, I was able to secure three good paying jobs for myself. I credit this to having the same mindset as you. However, I don't believe that we think like most of the population. This is why there are few rich people - because they think differently from the majority of the population.

It's not enough to say to someone "well you have to find the opportunity" People were fed a lie - that if you get a college degree and work hard you can get a job in the field that you studied. The 2008 finanical crisis changed all that. If you have 100 people trying for one job - how is that opportunity? If you say to those people at the protests - "well you just have to work whatever job you can find." I'm sure a lot of them would respond with "I worked hard and am now in a lot of debt for a degree that is now worthless."

Life shouldn't be like this.

Even if the protestors get off their "asses" and work at McDonalds' how long is it going to take them to pay off the $25,000 ( in average) student loan debt they've accumulated? After paying for basics, what is going to be left for debt payoff or savings? What is going to happen if they get sick and can't afford treatment because McDonalds' doesn't provide health insurance?

in 2004 , I realized that getting a degree doesn't mean I'm going to get a job. What's their excuses? I didn't have internet back then like we do now, to be able to find out so much information. So, who's fault is it that they collected all that debt? My brothers got degrees, and they didn't fall into debt, while working minimum wage jobs, and not being citezens or speaking perfect English. Why are these people in so much debt? And, what are their degrees in? Why couldn't they study on their own, and get useful skills that they can then present to their employer? That's free.

Intelligent people might be able to get lied to, but falling for the lie is another thing all together. And who says it was a lie, exactly? No one promised them a job, did they? You have a lot of tech schools that actually help you find jobs, because you have an actual skill.

If they get sick, then they could go to any of the hospitals that care for anyone, no questions asked. They are called county hospitals. But they are almost bankrupt, so you better hurry.

This is the land of opportunity. There is opportunity for anyone. That doesn't mean for everyone tho.

[rawxstasy]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

in 2004 , I realized that getting a degree doesn't mean I'm going to get a job. What's their excuses? I didn't have internet back then like we do now, to be able to find out so much information. So, who's fault is it that they collected all that debt? My brothers got degrees, and they didn't fall into debt, while working minimum wage jobs, and not being citezens or speaking perfect English. Why are these people in so much debt? And, what are their degrees in? Why couldn't they study on their own, and get useful skills that they can then present to their employer? That's free.

Intelligent people might be able to get lied to, but falling for the lie is another thing all together. And who says it was a lie, exactly? No one promised them a job, did they? You have a lot of tech schools that actually help you find jobs, because you have an actual skill.

If they get sick, then they could go to any of the hospitals that care for anyone, no questions asked. They are called county hospitals. But they are almost bankrupt, so you better hurry.

This is the land of opportunity. There is opportunity for anyone. That doesn't mean for everyone tho.

Well I could have studied nursing on my own - I suppose - but I would have had to prove that I had graduated from an accredited school of nursing in order to take the licensing exam. I needed the license to get a job. I accumalated $40K in student loan debt. And I was working part time while taking the mandatory full time credits for school. I worked three jobs in the summer and I still accumulated all this debt. I just got lucky. I was able to move to an area that was hiring nurses. People were shocked when I'd tell them I couldn't get a job as a nurse in Montana. Because everyone believed that there are always nursing jobs. ( another lie that the media perpetuated )

I commend you and your brothers on being able to overcome so many obstacles. My opinion is the obstacles are becoming insurmountable and why should people have to put up with it?

Where's the commpassion? If our economy was where it was 10 years ago, we wouldn't be having these protests or having this arguement.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by rawxstasy

I think the same you do Peter. In the middle of the worst recession, I was able to secure three good paying jobs for myself. I credit this to having the same mindset as you. However, I don't believe that we think like most of the population. This is why there are few rich people - because they think differently from the majority of the population.

It's not enough to say to someone "well you have to find the opportunity" People were fed a lie - that if you get a college degree and work hard you can get a job in the field that you studied. The 2008 finanical crisis changed all that. If you have 100 people trying for one job - how is that opportunity? If you say to those people at the protests - "well you just have to work whatever job you can find." I'm sure a lot of them would respond with "I worked hard and am now in a lot of debt for a degree that is now worthless."

Life shouldn't be like this.

Even if the protestors get off their "asses" and work at McDonalds' how long is it going to take them to pay off the $25,000 ( in average) student loan debt they've accumulated? After paying for basics, what is going to be left for debt payoff or savings? What is going to happen if they get sick and can't afford treatment because McDonalds' doesn't provide health insurance?

I do see the point better when you put it this way.

What gets to me is how little people on front line public services get paid. Nurses, firefighters and police I think should be far more appreciated than they are now.

I never went to college but I did rack up a huge debt (now paid off) from being plain naiive and stupid - and having a very good time in my 20s :P

I'm all for for a redistribution of wealth although I feel that it needs to be achieved in a more creative and intelligent way. The Internet has completely transformed how business is done now and given the little guy more of a chance than ever to take on the big corporations.

People are championing small businesses and focusing their anger at big businesses. But at one time those big businesses were small as well. In effect the corporations are small businesses that made it. So where does the line get drawn where the champion becomes the bad guy?

This is why there are few rich people - because they think differently from the majority of the population.

It's true that a very small % of the population go on to create successful large businesses that in turn create wealth, jobs and taxes. As long as the incentive is still there to do it...

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Peterw

People are championing small businesses and focusing their anger at big businesses. But at one time those big businesses were small as well. In effect the corporations are small businesses that made it. So where does the line get drawn where the champion becomes the bad guy?

Good question.

In my view, the line gets drawn the minute any business, big or small, incorporated or not, hires lobbyists, contributes to a political campaign, or outright bribes a politician to his bidding.