• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP makes $2.2 Trillion Counteroffer to Obama - includes revenue increases

Catawba said:
The only problem with your theory, is that the reality for the majority of Americans is much different.
Click to expand...

:) Thank you for your opinion!

Did you miss the election campaign where one side promised to increase tax cuts for the wealthy and the other side promised to build a strong middle class as the way to make the nation prosper?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where you were supposed to provide any evidence of your claims?
 
iguanaman said:
McCain said we would be there for 100 years
Click to expand...

Horribly dishonest presentation. Any reading of context of McCain's comment could see that the "100 years" comment was relating it to things like Germany or Japan or other locations where we have a lasting presence through military bases. This is the exact same thing the Obama Administration TRIED to actually get to occur in Iraq as well but failed whe nthey couldn't negotiate a SOFA. The attempt to present McCain's comment as if he was seeking to have an active, lasting, war type presence there rather than simply a standard post war setup, as well as trying to act like that's different than what the Obama Administratoin themselves attempted to get, is pure sophistry.
 
Zyphlin said:
Horribly dishonest presentation. Any reading of context of McCain's comment could see that the "100 years" comment was relating it to things like Germany or Japan or other locations where we have a lasting presence through military bases. This is the exact same thing the Obama Administration TRIED to actually get to occur in Iraq as well but failed whe nthey couldn't negotiate a SOFA. The attempt to present McCain's comment as if he was seeking to have an active, lasting, war type presence there rather than simply a standard post war setup, as well as trying to act like that's different than what the Obama Administratoin themselves attempted to get, is pure sophistry.
Click to expand...


and just how do you think a continuing US presence in Iraq would be similar to our long time presence in various European nations? Was there, is there - any guerilla actions in any of the nations that hosted US forces following WWII?

The breaking point on the SoFA negotiation was Iraq's demand that US troops come under Iraqi civil law if they committed a criminal offense while off duty.

As long as you have the three factions in Iraq fighting each other, it would never be a "standard post war setup"
 
iguanaman said:
Actually there is no correlation between tax cuts for the wealthy and employment. Bush had dismal job creation despite both cuts he made during his terms. Clinton created more jobs than both Bush's AND Reagan put together and he RAISED taxes on the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Employment grew by 10 million jobs during Bush's terms. Thats not dismal. It actually the same rate of growth as during Clintons term.
 
Well, Im just glad to see that democrats being honest about caring more for class warfare than actually solving anything. They know raising taxes on the rich wont put a dent in the deficit or debt. Which is why they talk about fairness, not financial stability or good economics.
 
tererun said:
Interestingly the last time the US was in really good shape those were the tax rates on the rich. Things started to go downhill when we started lowering the tax rates on the rich. I think it was kennedy who lowered the rate from the 90s to the 70s. 20 years later the tax rate on the rich is even lower and bingo we are in a recession that keeps coming back over and over again.

The fact is that a higher rate will not cause the starvation of the wealthy. they wills till make much more money every year than any middle or poor class person. The fact is the so called redistribution of wealth creates consumer demand. trickle down economics is complete fail where push up economics raises the status of everyone including the rich. There is a reason for this. poor people who get money consume. That consumption makes demand. that demand means a need for more production and distribution. That means rich people hire or new businesses come about to fill the need. trickle down fails because the rich get the money, they don't have a reason to hire because there is no demand, and they keep the money. Less demand actually means it is harder on small businesses to get customers, and the large businesses own everything which makes monopolies. All of that is terrible for growth, and it causes massive stagnation because the one percent cannot create enough demand to drive business forward so they just end up buying weak companies and absorbing their wealth while spitting out nothing.

But you spend the rest of your life trying to bribe the rich for a piece of their pie through tax cuts and corporate welfare. They have you scared and ignorant and that is just where they want you. They give you false promise of a great life if only you get that expensive college degree, and then they don't hire you. Really what is the chain? Oh if only you had a college degree, oh we want a 4 year degree, oh now it is a masters, oh don't you have a PhD, sorry we just hired that guy he is the nephew of the CEO sorry. You are really gullible, and what is sad is that the people who know are trying to protect you from your own ignorance and poor election choices. But what do I expect from a person in a state who went for rick scott and alan west. Yeah, there were a pair of honest and good people. One is involved in felony medicare fraud, and the other was kicked out of the military for being really stupid. Do you know how stupid you have to be to get kicked out of the military for being too stupid to be cannon fodder?
Click to expand...

The rich were paying less taxes in the 50s, your golden age, than they do now.

The share of income taxes paid by top earners has increased as well. As Figure 2 shows, the share paid by the top 20 percent of households was 94.1 percent in 2009, just shy of the record high of 94.6 percent in 2008. This is up from 64.7 percent in 1979.
Click to expand...

CBO Report Shows Increasing Redistribution in the Tax Code Despite No Long-term Trend in Income Inequality | Tax Foundation

graph-2.png
 
specklebang said:
Honestly, I've always felt sorry for the ultra-rich. No peace and quiet, dressing up all the time and faking smiles, choosing which cr to drive today and think about your yacht and if you should pick up a mansion in Hong Kong. All your "friends" are either as detached as you are or really just taking part in the long term mooch. I knew one ultra-rich guy who owned a casino in Laas Vegas. He traveled with bodyguards. What fun.

I think you and the TurtleMan are clashing over whatever rich is. Lots of people are rich. They have a house, a car, cool toys, vacations and plenty of hard work. They're NOT the filthy rich though. Those guys have undue influence over our politicians and our society. For the most part, a large portion of the PROPOSED tax change will fall on them dollar wise and they'll only have a few billion left. Oh, the HORROR.

Also, rich is in the mind of the beholder. I view myself as rich. I have a paid for house, car, cats, a source of enough income and some money in the bank. If I won the lottery, my lifestyle wouldn't change one iota.
Click to expand...
Same here, except for the cats....been there, won't do it again since we travel a lot now.
Rich to me is based on having all our needs covered, and money left for some fun.
 
winston53660 said:
Living for how many toys bragging rights whatever you can get......must suck. I honestly feel soory for those people.
Click to expand...

There are several very rich in my immediate neighborhood....here in UT and in AZ. They tend to isolate themselves, like they are afraid someone might ask them for something. One I know just retired from half ownership of a chevy dealership. A member of our church actually thought that just knowing him was enough to get a big discount on a new vehicle that he could not afford, and financing for it as well. So there is some basis for the self isolation...
 
UtahBill said:
There are several very rich in my immediate neighborhood....here in UT and in AZ. They tend to isolate themselves, like they are afraid someone might ask them for something. One I know just retired from half ownership of a chevy dealership. A member of our church actually thought that just knowing him was enough to get a big discount on a new vehicle that he could not afford, and financing for it as well. So there is some basis for the self isolation...
Click to expand...


Thats not what I was really talking about.

I grew in a part of Dallas often refered to as the bubble. Dick Cheney for a time was one of our neighbors.
 
Catawba said:
I agree with you completely there, with the realization that it is just not going to happen until our society evolves more than it has to this point.



While this is only $1 billiion a year, I agree that policies like this which was are not there to encourage a positive outcome should be eliminated. I wonder why this, or any suggestions to cuts spending was not included in the GOP counter offer to the President. Have you actually read the GOP proposal (4 page letter), and the complete lack of any specificity?





"Social Security isn't responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government.

Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years. "

"oday, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto. Social Security's long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved."

Robert Reich: Budget Baloney: Why Social Security Isn't a Problem for 26 Years, and the Best Way to Fix It Permanently



Health care costs are the problem. Privatizing would only add to the cost for consumers.

"It is generally agreed that this industry adds 15 to 20 percent to the cost of its premiums to pay for its business overhead and profits, whereas the administrative costs of Medicare are less than 5 percent. "
Medicare and Private Health Insurance - NYTimes.com



As shown, SS has an easy fix to make it solvent for the long term. in order to most effectively deal with our health care cost we will eventually have to up grade to UHC as every other industrialized nation has had to do to lower health care costs.
Click to expand...

Social security has been raided of it's funds, it has been given treasuries to replace them... There is no "cash" in the bank. And the government is only paying interest on the treasuries. The government just paying the money back is fine, but that will just mean they will have to add more debt to do so. So yes Social security adds to our debt, and has been adding to debt since 2010...

Now as for this plan the first and major issue is that the government doesn't have the money to pay back more than the interest alone let alone the principal of social security, further, it was calculated by the CBO and many other sources, that social security would not take out more than was paid in until 2016... It started to 6 years prior to that.

Now I don't know the breakdown of how much we pay in vs pay out and if the interest alone on the treasuries will be able to cover that, but my guess is this 26 year figure is very very optimistic...

As for medicare, yes private insurance would increase the cost to the consumer because there are no plans in the world that make sense that you pay in 30 dollars and get out 100 dollars, there is universal health care, and there are programs that just don't add up... Now I'm with you that health care costs are high, one of the major reasons of that is the obesity epidemic in the US. Another is a lack of doctors and more specifically the cost of going to medical school. Another is the crazy liability a doctor has, and the way the legal system works. Doctors are forced to run a bunch of unnecessary tests just to cover themselves from liability, these add a huge cost. People expect doctors to be perfect and able to fix everything and if they don't they expect to be able to sue and win millions, this is absurd.

Needless to say, there are a bunch of problems with our entitlements, which need to be addressed.
 
tererun said:
Think some of these through for a change. Putting these people into manufacturing goods for the country to consume is a death sentence for their jobs. One of the reason defense costs so much is we spend a lot to keep americans employed. If these companies had to compete with foreign manufacturers like China without guaranteed military contracts they would have the same trouble every other American manufacturer has. The jobs would be outsourced for cheap labor and the americans would be out of work. this is because you don't need to pay american salaries around the world. Overinflated salaries do not work in a world market full of cheapo labor, and when automation is making manufacturing jobs require less and less human work hours.

What needs to be done is we need jobs here at home. There is a solution. it is called infrastructure development. there are a ton of projects that would make jobs that have to be done here; A new electrical smart grid, medical care for all, high speed rail networks, and high speed data networks. All of those things create jobs here. If we wanted to we could even retool those manufacturing jobs and require the US make the needed items here at home to provide even more jobs. this is not just a matter of the jobs we hire directly for. More jobs means more demand for goods which means increases in every sector of our economy. republicans blew it for us when we had an opportunity to get government healthcare for everyone. Imagine all the jobs that would have been created to deal with the demand for medicine that would have increased by 10s of millions of customers. You would not just need doctors. You would need nurses, orderlies, janitors, receptionists, accountants, record keepers, computer professionals, computers, construction of new facilities, maintenance people, drivers to get cripples, homecare people, and so many others. That was jobs and all we had to do was to kill off the insurance company CEOs. Oh, but that is socialism and jobs are evil.


Another idea you don't think through. those subsidies are there for a reason. It is because the free market doesn't like farmers very much. You are a farmer. Every year you have bills and expenses, so every year you have to make money. You are like every american and you want the most you can get so you farm your land and sell your goods. Unfortunately we don't need all of those goods here in america. We have more farmland than we need. I know that sounds amazing, but it is true. So as every farmer wants to make the most they farm the most of their land creating a huge oversupply that drives their prices down. meanwhile they trash out their land which needs time to recover every few years from the crops. So we have 2 things this system creates. poor farmers who cannot get value from their crops, and a dustbowl.The reason these subsidies are there is because it actually helps farmers to survive and allows land to have time to recover it's nutrients for plants. Farming is a renewable resource, but it does take time to renew the land.

Under a system of socialism we could use the land by need rather than greed and the farmers would not have to worry. So we create a sort of capitalist socialism which I admit does not work very well. There are certain systems which work much better under design and not by capitalism. Farming would seem to be one of them.



Again, you are not thinking of the reality. you have a system which is taking in money. Government and others see that income and want it, but it already has a purpose. one of the problems is that through things like investment and banking they figure out a way to get that money. They allow that money to be raided for other projects under the promise it will be paid back with interest. Sounds like a great idea on the surface to allow idle money to work for the economy and for SS to get more return than normal. the problem arises in that those loans and investments don't end up getting paid back. Social security should not be touched. privatising retirement has also failed because the way they do it is to form that future retirement money into other investments which are supposed to be good investments and as people found out they were selling them toxic loans the banks didn't want to get stuck owning.


the problem with that idea is the people who medicare covers are not employed. The money for that comes from the present workers to cover the retired people. You cannot get more money from people who live on a income based on a finite savings. What really needs to be done is a reform int he medical industry. medical costs in all areas are way out of control, and then you pile on an insurance company who is giving money out to shareholders and executives and the problem gets even worse.


private for profit health insurance companies are one of the huge problems with the medical industry. obama took a good step in forcing them to pay out most of their money to their customers. I think it should either be made into a government run and provided system, or at least toss it into the NFP category and remove investors and high paid corporate executives from it.
Click to expand...

We can't compete with china because they artificially hold down prices. That won't last forever, there have already been reports out of companies being fined if they raise prices, well input costs are going up, at some point they will not be able to produce goods without losing money and will stop producing... Their real estate bubble which makes places like Miami and Las Vegas look like nothing will pop. China will turn into the same fate of Japan... Just to assume we can't compete is absurd, though. The defense spending will not be reduced unless we find other ways of providing jobs in these states with these funds that are not one or two year jobs like infrastructure spending.

Have you seen what have happened to the price of commodities lately... Please tell me you are joking on this... Further there are people who benefit who never were going to be farmers in the first place...

Insurance costs are an issue, there are a few things that need to change, 1 Obesity (one of the major drivers for cost in the US) 2. Liability for doctors. 3. Cost of becoming a doctor. But to say that the government can reform the cost of the medical industry is laughable, health care costs have gone up far less then the cost of government...
 
Without a cat, you can not have a full life but still it looks like you are also "rich" by my definition.


UtahBill said:
Same here, except for the cats....been there, won't do it again since we travel a lot now.
Rich to me is based on having all our needs covered, and money left for some fun.
Click to expand...
 
RLWSNOOK said:
Social security has been raided of it's funds, it has been given treasuries to replace them... There is no "cash" in the bank. And the government is only paying interest on the treasuries. The government just paying the money back is fine, but that will just mean they will have to add more debt to do so. So yes Social security adds to our debt, and has been adding to debt since 2010...
Click to expand...

Something about this is not right. The current debt +/-$16t includes intragovernmental debt (SS treasuries). If we borrow from other sources (sell new treasuries) to repay the SS trust fund (or fund current benefits) our total liabilities do not change but who owns them does. You CAN however claim that the dollars we borrow today to repay those SS dollars spent in the past are not equal (from inflation).

This is what was confusing last year when the President, on CBS, stated that he was unsure if the SS checks could go out due to hitting the debt ceiling. ANY monies in the treasury could have been used to purchase back the SS treasuries thus reducing the debt and not exceding the debt ceiling. Even if the money was borrowed it would have been to offset previous debt and had no net effect on the debt (as stated above). Seemed like a scare tactic to me, watch for it again during these negotiations.
 
Dickieboy said:
Something about this is not right. The current debt +/-$16t includes intragovernmental debt (SS treasuries). If we borrow from other sources (sell new treasuries) to repay the SS trust fund (or fund current benefits) our total liabilities do not change but who owns them does. You CAN however claim that the dollars we borrow today to repay those SS dollars spent in the past are not equal (from inflation).

This is what was confusing last year when the President, on CBS, stated that he was unsure if the SS checks could go out due to hitting the debt ceiling. ANY monies in the treasury could have been used to purchase back the SS treasuries thus reducing the debt and not exceding the debt ceiling. Even if the money was borrowed it would have been to offset previous debt and had no net effect on the debt (as stated above). Seemed like a scare tactic to me, watch for it again during these negotiations.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the numbers available to the public include the interest owed, so I would think that the public debt that would need to be tendered to materialize the SS trust fund would be greater than the existing debt limit.
 
jonny5 said:
Employment grew by 10 million jobs during Bush's terms. Thats not dismal. It actually the same rate of growth as during Clintons term.
Click to expand...


The answer is that 42 million jobs were created under Democratic presidents, and 24 million under Republicans. You can check out the chart here. The champion of course is Clinton, with 20.8 million under Bberg’s numbers. Then comes Reagan at 14.7. Then come Johnson and Carter (yep, Carter). Then Nixon. And so on.

George W. Bush? The private sector lost 600,000 jobs. Imagine. In eight years, he did not create a single job. Obama is now in positive territory to the tune of 40,000, so even though Dubya handed him the biggest economic catastrophe in 80 years, he at least is in the black.Anyway. The numbers are amazing. And it gets even better. Bloomberg’s Bob Drummond also counted up the number of public-sector jobs created in the respective 23 and 28 years. Results: Federal, state, and local government payrolls grew by 7.1 million under Republicans, and 6.3 million under Democrats.

So drink this in: Private-sector job growth is massively greater under Democrats, and it’s Republicans who’ve increased the public tit.
Click to expand...

Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House - Bloomberg
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:) Thank you for your opinion!
Click to expand...

You are welcome! Too bad you didn't listen when I told you who the majority of people were going to vote in as President!



Did you miss the part where you were supposed to provide any evidence of your claims?
Click to expand...

"a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich."

Weekly Address: Obama Continues Push for ‘Middle-class’ Tax Cut Extension

Obama Wins Re-Election With Romney Defeated in Key States
 
Zyphlin said:
Horribly dishonest presentation. Any reading of context of McCain's comment could see that the "100 years" comment was relating it to things like Germany or Japan or other locations where we have a lasting presence through military bases. This is the exact same thing the Obama Administration TRIED to actually get to occur in Iraq as well but failed whe nthey couldn't negotiate a SOFA. The attempt to present McCain's comment as if he was seeking to have an active, lasting, war type presence there rather than simply a standard post war setup, as well as trying to act like that's different than what the Obama Administratoin themselves attempted to get, is pure sophistry.
Click to expand...


McCain is still whinning about the President's withdrawal of troops from Iraq!
 
RLWSNOOK said:
Social security has been raided of it's funds, it has been given treasuries to replace them... There is no "cash" in the bank. And the government is only paying interest on the treasuries. The government just paying the money back is fine, but that will just mean they will have to add more debt to do so. So yes Social security adds to our debt, and has been adding to debt since 2010...

Now as for this plan the first and major issue is that the government doesn't have the money to pay back more than the interest alone let alone the principal of social security, further, it was calculated by the CBO and many other sources, that social security would not take out more than was paid in until 2016... It started to 6 years prior to that.

Now I don't know the breakdown of how much we pay in vs pay out and if the interest alone on the treasuries will be able to cover that, but my guess is this 26 year figure is very very optimistic...

As for medicare, yes private insurance would increase the cost to the consumer because there are no plans in the world that make sense that you pay in 30 dollars and get out 100 dollars, there is universal health care, and there are programs that just don't add up... Now I'm with you that health care costs are high, one of the major reasons of that is the obesity epidemic in the US. Another is a lack of doctors and more specifically the cost of going to medical school. Another is the crazy liability a doctor has, and the way the legal system works. Doctors are forced to run a bunch of unnecessary tests just to cover themselves from liability, these add a huge cost. People expect doctors to be perfect and able to fix everything and if they don't they expect to be able to sue and win millions, this is absurd.

Needless to say, there are a bunch of problems with our entitlements, which need to be addressed.
Click to expand...


All the money taken from SS for general fund use must be paid back through the general fund. All those rich folks that benefited from low taxes while SS was paying for things are going to have pony up. Its as simple as that. Easy fix!

With health care costs its as I said before, that will only be addressed when we eventually upgrade to UHC as every other industrialized nation has done.
 
specklebang said:
Without a cat, you can not have a full life but still it looks like you are also "rich" by my definition.
Click to expand...
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. R.A. Heinlein



everything we have is paid for, the kids college degrees are paid for, and if things keep going as they are, the 7 grandkids will have their degrees paid for.
An education is one of the few important things you should give your children...
 
Catawba said:
All the money taken from SS for general fund use must be paid back through the general fund. All those rich folks that benefited from low taxes while SS was paying for things are going to have pony up. Its as simple as that. Easy fix!
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? The SS surpluses have been being spent almost from inception and most recently since the 1985 adjustment INCLUDING the Clinton years. Not quite a period when ‘those rich folks’ ‘benefitted from low tax rates’…

And just to be clear the BTC’s caused the lowest bracket benefited from a 30% marginal rate reduction (15% to 10%) in comparison to the 11% reduction (39.5% to 35%) the ‘rich folks’ realized. Who benefited the most?
 
No, it isn't that simple.

1) SS has been plundered for decades and even Obama cut th rate as a form of "payroll tax reduction". SS has not relly dealt with the longer lifespan issue and they better do something soon. As for the money that's been take? I don't know what happens when you steal from yourself. Do you pay yourself back?

2) Taxes aren't just a matter of dollars or percentages. A 30% discount on the taxes of the lower incomes doesn't amount to a lot of dollars. On the highest incomes, the percentage is not a definition of the dollars.

I'd rather pay 40% on a million than 0% on $20,000.00.

It's a mess, isn't it?


Dickieboy said:
You're kidding right? The SS surpluses have been being spent almost from inception and most recently since the 1985 adjustment INCLUDING the Clinton years. Not quite a period when ‘those rich folks’ ‘benefitted from low tax rates’…

And just to be clear the BTC’s caused the lowest bracket benefited from a 30% marginal rate reduction (15% to 10%) in comparison to the 11% reduction (39.5% to 35%) the ‘rich folks’ realized. Who benefited the most?
Click to expand...
 
Dickieboy said:
You're kidding right? The SS surpluses have been being spent almost from inception and most recently since the 1985 adjustment INCLUDING the Clinton years. Not quite a period when ‘those rich folks’ ‘benefitted from low tax rates’…

And just to be clear the BTC’s caused the lowest bracket benefited from a 30% marginal rate reduction (15% to 10%) in comparison to the 11% reduction (39.5% to 35%) the ‘rich folks’ realized. Who benefited the most?
Click to expand...

No, we aren't kidding at all. You do know that the treasury notes held are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States correct? Do you think you can just walk away from that responsibility. We have never done so in the history of our country!

As to who benefited from the tax cuts, Just ask the majority of the electorate who has benefited most from the "temporary tax cuts". Or if you wish, look at who holds the most of the wealth in this country.
 
Catawba said:
No, we aren't kidding at all. You do know that the treasury notes held are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States correct? Do you think you can just walk away from that responsibility. We have never done so in the history of our country!
Click to expand...

Sorry but I am having trouble connecting the dots. I understood your assertion in post 169 to mean that ‘all the money taken from the SS for general fund must be paid back…all those rich folks…are going to have to pony up’. Meaning that while ALL citizens benefited by the government spending the SS money OVER MANY YEARS, ADMINISTRATIONS AND TAXATION RATES only the ‘rich folks’ must pay it back. Am I misunderstanding your point? If not does that seem fair?

As to who benefited from the tax cuts, Just ask the majority of the electorate who has benefited most from the "temporary tax cuts". Or if you wish, look at who holds the most of the wealth in this country.
Click to expand...

How should we measure ‘who has benefited most from the "temporary tax cuts"? I presented the difference in the rate cut percentage by these "temporary tax cuts". Would you rather quantify that in dollar amounts? As to who holds the most of the wealth in this country, it has ALWAYS been the upper bracket…obviously so as that is what makes them the upper bracket…
 
UtahBill said:
I guess it is hard work trying all day every day to get more than the next filthy rich guy on the Forbes 400 list.
That kind of life can not be enjoyable.
Click to expand...

that's sort of a silly stereotype. I could have retired at 30 and lived very well, so could have my father and his father before him. But we didn't. I work hard for my family and those who will come after me, just as my ancestors did. when you stop working hard, even 200 year old family fortunes will fail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom