The Top 500 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than The Bottom 150 Million Do

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by blocula
www.mybudget360.com... ...what a decent new car costs now ,you could buy a nice house 40 years ago for the same price!.....somethings really wrong here and the end results not going to be nice

Wages were also considerably less the average household income was $3,216.00 in the 50S. Hate to tell you nothing has changed if anything we have more buying power now.

edit on 8/18/11 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

That was a very good point: I'd like to add: I saw several replies above about how MUCH MORE difficult it is today to start a business!

BULLHOCKEY! with the internet "We"( you and me; Sting,&Bono, and Dave Matthews have equal opportunity to get music heard)( if I could play a note or two together) or get,my photographs out or create an "indie" film like independent director/editor/writer/filmmaker Robert Rodriguez(and his one man operation) " trouble maker studios")


I'm changing niches myself: teaching myself web design and coding for small business. I'm keeping a small local motorcycle shop alive through the downturn by not charging them much.: It's why I'm in front of the 'puter all day...Infact I'm done one finger typing tonight;going to watch a netflix with a beer or two G' night.....

Originally posted by 46ACE
So This is "IT"

Isn't it?

The great divide in this country: "You have more; you obviously stole it or hurt people to get it; ergo: it has become forfeit and property of the "collective"(state).

Perhaps a
"refresher" ( ormaybe"first look"?) for you young "socially conscious" do-gooders :
en.wikipedia.org...

Following their leader Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labour projects.

In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 7.1 million people, as of 1975[6]),

it was the most lethal regime of the 20th century.[7]

The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments.

The Khmer Rouge believed parents were tainted with capitalism. Consequently, children were separated from parents and brainwashed to communism as well as taught torture methods with animals. Children were a "dictatorial instrument of the party"[8] and were given leadership in torture and executions.[1]
Flag of Democratic Kampuchea

One of their mottoes, in reference to the New People, was: "To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss."[9] The ideology of the Khmer Rouge evolved over time. In the early days, it was an orthodox communist party and looked to the Vietnamese Communists for guidance.

It became more anti-intellectual when groups of students who had been studying in France returned to Cambodia. The students, including future party leader Pol Pot, had been heavily influenced by the example of the French Communist Party (PCF).

-continues(further down the page):
"In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "Old People" through agricultural labor. These actions resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation.

In Phnom Penh and other cities, the Khmer Rouge told residents that they would be moved only about "two or three kilometers" outside the city and would return in "two or three days." Some witnesses say they were told that the evacuation was because of the "threat of American bombing" and that they did not have to lock their houses since the Khmer Rouge would "take care of everything" until they returned. These were not the first evacuations of civilian populations by the Khmer Rouge. Similar evacuations of populations without possessions had been occurring on a smaller scale since the early 1970s.

The Khmer Rouge attempted to turn Cambodia into a classless society by depopulating cities and forcing the urban population ("New People") into agricultural communes. The entire population was forced to become farmers in labor camps.

Money was abolished, books were burned, teachers, merchants, and almost the entire intellectual elite of the country were murdered, to make the agricultural communism, as Pol Pot envisioned it, a reality. The planned relocation to the countryside resulted in the complete halt of almost all economic activity: even schools and hospitals were closed, as well as banks, and industrial and service companies.

During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who had the potential to undermine the new state (including intellectuals or even those that had stereotypical signs of learning, such as glasses) and killing many others for breaching even minor rules.

Cambodians were expected to produce three tons of rice per hectare; before the Khmer Rouge era, the average was only one ton per hectare. The Khmer Rouge forced people to work for 12 hours non-stop, without adequate rest or food. They did not believe in western medicine but instead favoured traditional peasant medicine; many died as a result.

Family relationships not sanctioned by the state were also banned, and family members could be put to death for communicating with each other. In any case, family members were often relocated to different parts of the country with all postal and telephone services abolished.

The total lack of agricultural knowledge by the former city dwellers made famine inevitable. Rural dwellers were often unsympathetic or too frightened to assist them. Such acts as picking wild fruit or berries was seen as "private enterprise" and punished by death.

en.wikipedia.org...
Just letingyou know where we on this side ( who can "uncomprehendingly" support the "wealthy" as I see all the time) are coming from...

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

the khmer rouge "was not" the most lethal regime of the twentieth century...stalin killed around 3 times as many of his own people and mao killed about 2 times as many as stalin did

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by blocula
www.mybudget360.com... ...what a decent new car costs now ,you could buy a nice house 40 years ago for the same price!.....somethings really wrong here and the end results not going to be nice

Wages were also considerably less the average household income was $3,216.00 in the 50S. Hate to tell you nothing has changed if anything we have more buying power now.

edit on 8/18/11 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

as i explained in my opening paragraph...in 1945 my grandfather grossed $100 and brought home $92,his dollar had 92cents of buying power...if i gross $100 dollars i bring home $65 so explain how our dollar now has more buying power?

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by 46ACE
So This is "IT"

Isn't it?

The great divide in this country: "You have more; you obviously stole it or hurt people to get it; ergo: it has become forfeit and property of the "collective"(state).

Perhaps a
"refresher" ( ormaybe"first look"?) for you young "socially conscious" do-gooders :
en.wikipedia.org...

Following their leader Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labour projects.

In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 7.1 million people, as of 1975[6]),

it was the most lethal regime of the 20th century.[7]

The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments.

The Khmer Rouge believed parents were tainted with capitalism. Consequently, children were separated from parents and brainwashed to communism as well as taught torture methods with animals. Children were a "dictatorial instrument of the party"[8] and were given leadership in torture and executions.[1]
Flag of Democratic Kampuchea

One of their mottoes, in reference to the New People, was: "To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss."[9] The ideology of the Khmer Rouge evolved over time. In the early days, it was an orthodox communist party and looked to the Vietnamese Communists for guidance.

It became more anti-intellectual when groups of students who had been studying in France returned to Cambodia. The students, including future party leader Pol Pot, had been heavily influenced by the example of the French Communist Party (PCF).

-continues(further down the page):
"In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "Old People" through agricultural labor. These actions resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation.

In Phnom Penh and other cities, the Khmer Rouge told residents that they would be moved only about "two or three kilometers" outside the city and would return in "two or three days." Some witnesses say they were told that the evacuation was because of the "threat of American bombing" and that they did not have to lock their houses since the Khmer Rouge would "take care of everything" until they returned. These were not the first evacuations of civilian populations by the Khmer Rouge. Similar evacuations of populations without possessions had been occurring on a smaller scale since the early 1970s.

The Khmer Rouge attempted to turn Cambodia into a classless society by depopulating cities and forcing the urban population ("New People") into agricultural communes. The entire population was forced to become farmers in labor camps.

Money was abolished, books were burned, teachers, merchants, and almost the entire intellectual elite of the country were murdered, to make the agricultural communism, as Pol Pot envisioned it, a reality. The planned relocation to the countryside resulted in the complete halt of almost all economic activity: even schools and hospitals were closed, as well as banks, and industrial and service companies.

During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who had the potential to undermine the new state (including intellectuals or even those that had stereotypical signs of learning, such as glasses) and killing many others for breaching even minor rules.

Cambodians were expected to produce three tons of rice per hectare; before the Khmer Rouge era, the average was only one ton per hectare. The Khmer Rouge forced people to work for 12 hours non-stop, without adequate rest or food. They did not believe in western medicine but instead favoured traditional peasant medicine; many died as a result.

Family relationships not sanctioned by the state were also banned, and family members could be put to death for communicating with each other. In any case, family members were often relocated to different parts of the country with all postal and telephone services abolished.

The total lack of agricultural knowledge by the former city dwellers made famine inevitable. Rural dwellers were often unsympathetic or too frightened to assist them. Such acts as picking wild fruit or berries was seen as "private enterprise" and punished by death.

en.wikipedia.org...
Just letingyou know where we on this side ( who can "uncomprehendingly" support the "wealthy" as I see all the time) are coming from...

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

the khmer rouge "was not" the most lethal regime of the twentieth century...stalin killed around 3 times as many of his own people and mao killed about 2 times as many as stalin did

could be; TheWiki article qualified that with:" In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 7.1 million people, as of 1975[6]), " Seems percentagewise the kmher were particularly devastating.
If it was completely wrong; I apologize; my point was not dependent upon accurate statistics it was: we've heard the "eat the rich" cries before and it turns out badly for the surviving "proletariat".
My one good "typing' hand is "spent".g'night...

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by blocula
this is what the government expects and demands of the 150,000,000 people and 99% of their children when they grow up >>> "run the rat race till you die and your gonna pay for your coffin and grave as well and if you rock the boat and dont bow down to our iron will you will be left with three choices >>> homelessness,prison or death"........"you have to like yourself to be normal and being normal is expensive"

You have it nailed down: homelessness,prison, or death.


Dont expect much from people though.
A large percentage, maybe even 66% or more, worship those with
money and power and will beg the rich to be allowed to
serve them on their knees.
That is human nature and no amount of education
can change that.
They will starve to death and still worship the rich with
their last breath.

PS: It may be that it is only the top 400 who hold as much wealth
as the bottom 150 million.

the majority of sheeple are posessed by materialism...and in the end,all we take with us is our souls

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The op has pointed out about the wealth that is held by the small percentage of people in the US and states how wrong it is that so many are struggling while these people are living easy, and the taxes that are paid on every 100 dollars made.
There are a few things that can be stated, as to this fact.

There are 2 kinds of wealthy people in this country, old and new wealthy. Those who hold the old wealthy, inherited it from their family, that worked very hard at making that money, to pass it on to the next generation. What is not often looked or stated, is that all of the wealth made from business, all started with a person willing to take a chance and a risk to put up everything to grab hold of the American dream and to make it. What is not stated or shown is how much people who do put forth that risk, are willing to gamble, even with their own family and social lives, working long and hard, just to ensure that they accumulate that wealth, living very frugally and often spending far less than what middle and lower class people spend to live. And their family that inherits said wealth, work hard to keep it, by investing and taking small risks, to slowly increase and keep it growing, and thus passing it to their children.

The new wealth, are people, like Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, who took a chance, and found a niche in the market to use to build their individual wealth and become wealthy. But funny how the op fails to mention that no matter if it is old or new wealth, how these wealthy people take the time to give back to the community, in the areas of foundations, grants, and endowments, that benefit all in a community and not just a few. They give to charity and those, like Bill Gates, and Jobs, and Hunter, pay more in taxes, that too is not mentioned by the Op.

We can not punish the rich or the very wealthy, for their success, as that is wrong. Do you punish someone for being the best in their field, or at what they do, penalizing them for getting and showing that it is possible to be successful in this country? Are they not entitled to celebrate in their own way, or do we go the way that a few would suggest and redistribute the wealth, taking from those that worked so hard at what it is that made them their fortune, then what message does that send, beyond don’t be successful or take a risk as you will get punished, leaving little to no incentive to even try?

No, the problem lies with the government that lays out the laws that make it hard for businesses to get started and expand. Remove much of that red tape and watch people move on up.

[thanx for your comment] as long as everyone believes that these rich people are donating to charity and giving back to the community than everythings fine,but "we dont really know they are doing this" we're just told they are. 99.9% of people could never prove that these rich people are actually giving back anything

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by 46ACE
So This is "IT"

Isn't it?

The great divide in this country: "You have more; you obviously stole it or hurt people to get it; ergo: it has become forfeit and property of the "collective"(state).

Perhaps a
"refresher" ( ormaybe"first look"?) for you young "socially conscious" do-gooders :
en.wikipedia.org...

Following their leader Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labour projects.

In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 7.1 million people, as of 1975[6]),

it was the most lethal regime of the 20th century.[7]

The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments.

The Khmer Rouge believed parents were tainted with capitalism. Consequently, children were separated from parents and brainwashed to communism as well as taught torture methods with animals. Children were a "dictatorial instrument of the party"[8] and were given leadership in torture and executions.[1]
Flag of Democratic Kampuchea

One of their mottoes, in reference to the New People, was: "To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss."[9] The ideology of the Khmer Rouge evolved over time. In the early days, it was an orthodox communist party and looked to the Vietnamese Communists for guidance.

It became more anti-intellectual when groups of students who had been studying in France returned to Cambodia. The students, including future party leader Pol Pot, had been heavily influenced by the example of the French Communist Party (PCF).

-continues(further down the page):
"In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "Old People" through agricultural labor. These actions resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation.

In Phnom Penh and other cities, the Khmer Rouge told residents that they would be moved only about "two or three kilometers" outside the city and would return in "two or three days." Some witnesses say they were told that the evacuation was because of the "threat of American bombing" and that they did not have to lock their houses since the Khmer Rouge would "take care of everything" until they returned. These were not the first evacuations of civilian populations by the Khmer Rouge. Similar evacuations of populations without possessions had been occurring on a smaller scale since the early 1970s.

The Khmer Rouge attempted to turn Cambodia into a classless society by depopulating cities and forcing the urban population ("New People") into agricultural communes. The entire population was forced to become farmers in labor camps.

Money was abolished, books were burned, teachers, merchants, and almost the entire intellectual elite of the country were murdered, to make the agricultural communism, as Pol Pot envisioned it, a reality. The planned relocation to the countryside resulted in the complete halt of almost all economic activity: even schools and hospitals were closed, as well as banks, and industrial and service companies.

During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who had the potential to undermine the new state (including intellectuals or even those that had stereotypical signs of learning, such as glasses) and killing many others for breaching even minor rules.

Cambodians were expected to produce three tons of rice per hectare; before the Khmer Rouge era, the average was only one ton per hectare. The Khmer Rouge forced people to work for 12 hours non-stop, without adequate rest or food. They did not believe in western medicine but instead favoured traditional peasant medicine; many died as a result.

Family relationships not sanctioned by the state were also banned, and family members could be put to death for communicating with each other. In any case, family members were often relocated to different parts of the country with all postal and telephone services abolished.

The total lack of agricultural knowledge by the former city dwellers made famine inevitable. Rural dwellers were often unsympathetic or too frightened to assist them. Such acts as picking wild fruit or berries was seen as "private enterprise" and punished by death.

en.wikipedia.org...
Just letingyou know where we on this side ( who can "uncomprehendingly" support the "wealthy" as I see all the time) are coming from...

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

the khmer rouge "was not" the most lethal regime of the twentieth century...stalin killed around 3 times as many of his own people and mao killed about 2 times as many as stalin did

could be; TheWiki article qualified that with:" In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 7.1 million people, as of 1975[6]), " Seems percentagewise the kmher were particularly devastating.
If it was completely wrong; I apologize; my point was not dependent upon accurate statistics it was: we've heard the "eat the rich" cries before and it turns out badly for the surviving "proletariat".
My one good "typing' hand is "spent".g'night...

no need to apologize, you have a lot of valid interesting things to say and points to make...thanx

Originally posted by 46ACE



You know I didn't like the bankers and CEO's giving themselves huge bonuses on the tarp money either;

I just can't support the principle behind "legislative revenge" which hands the money back to the govt at gunpoint: merely so they get to dish it out to their more palatable;"more" politically correct" friends this time around.

Worship the rich.
Its your thing.
Maybe they will throw you a bone.
When the top 400 people have as much wealth as the bottom 155 million thats evil.
that money came out of your pocket if you are one of those people.
thats what you need to understand.

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by 46ACE
I'm changing niches myself: teaching myself web design and coding for small business.

Well good luck with that…
I’ll tell you though, if you come out with a fantastic site on the net that draws a significant income, you can bet you’ll hear from a larger web company offering to buy your site for a pittance compared to its possible future profits. If you turn them down they will make it their mission to put out a competing product and run you out of the business.

Then we’ll see if you begin to understand what I am saying above.

they've rigged the system so only they can ultimately make significant money, and anyone who stands in their way better have just as deep pockets to stand against them. This has happened over and over in the IT field for decades now. Who do you think coined the phrase, "it takes money to make money".

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 8/18/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

I see: I also refuse to play their game; I don't require"significant money" to surviveI I lived within my means for alot of years; saved when I was still making "real" money we paid off the house and vehicles., and I am quite happy doing a little coding;a little photgraphy a little video work on small local jobs
My strategy is to do as much by myself as possible as efficiently(cheaply) as possible; and have alot of fun in the process...backto my "brew.." Gnight..

www.rense.com...

reply to post by fooks


It's not these individuals that are actually creating the jobs, it's companies that do that. Though I would argue that concentrating wealth so heavily in a relative few is basically slitting one's own throat. Capitalism depends upon consumers buying things...if wealth is so heavily concentrated that consumers can no longer afford to consume, then there goes the whole system. There's really only so many things that the rich can buy.

what would happen if the 150 million people all of a sudden one day,decided to simultaneously...stop going to work,stop paying car insurance,stop paying rent and mortgage,stop buying oil and gas ? if they did this for any length of time, i think that the ability of the rich to dominate the poor would vanish !

Originally posted by blocula
www.mybudget360.com... ...what a decent new car costs now ,you could buy a nice house 40 years ago for the same price!.....somethings really wrong here and the end results not going to be nice

In 1963 my parents bought a 120 acre farm in Southeastern Wisconsin for $32,000.00, which is today's price for a common motor vehicle. The property had one large two story home with a large basement (built in 1897), a smaller home built in the 1940s, a large barn, a smaller horse barn, a large shed building and workshop for the tractors, combine, and other farming equipment, a couple of tractors, and miscellaneous farming equipment and tools.

That farm house and barn that were built in the late 1800s were as solid as though they had been built the day before we moved in, but required a fair amount of deferred maintenance due to neglect.

Of course, a dollar then was worth much more than it is today. The inflation calculator at this web site

www.dollartimes.com...

says that $1.00 in 1963 had the same buying power as $7.21 has in 2011. Gasoline was about 50 cents a gallon in 1963. During a "gas war" it went as low as 20 cents.

Annual inflation from 1963 to 2011 was 4.20%. In today's dollars, that same farm property bought for $32,000 in 1963 would have cost $230,720.

But on today's real estate market it is worth nearly $2,000,000. No, we no longer have it. My parents sold it in 1979 for $79,000.00.

It is amazing by how much the price of real estate has out-paced the rate of inflation in the past 50 years.

reply to post by blocula

So the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not proof enough for you?

Or how about the actual tax codes that exist in the USA where you have to have a reciept if audited, that provides for donating to charities and non profit organizations, which has to list, as it is a part of public record, where they get their donations from?


Many of those who you are speaking ill of, donate money and put money into these organizations as part of lowering their taxes, yes they do that, but the point it that they do.

Or how about Jon Huntsman Sr, is he such a bad guy, cause he is one of the top earners and has over a billion dollars in assets?
Before you answer that you may also want to consider his philosophy, he came into this world with nothing, and is going out that way, as he is determined to give away his entire fortune to help society.
en.wikipedia.org...

The point being that these people are donating money, yet they do not have to, nor are they accountable to anyone, not to you, not to me, just themselves and they are giving to the charity of their choice. Now as unappealing as that may seem that they are choosing to donate money that may or may not affect you, that is their choice. You can not turn around and dictate how people give money or to what.


But then again, perhaps you would prefer the slum lord Barny Frank, or others in congress, after all they have the largest amount of wealth in the US, that sits in the very halls of power, to make the very decisions that hold the USA back.

reply to post by blocula


naah, you're just being paranoid and conspiratorial. there is no such thing as "top 500 richest".
you're just being led on by all those alex joneses, max keisers and whatnots. those people
are just in it to sell books and dvds, they're all lying. and they're envy. and they're helping
the terrorists to win this war because they hates ours freedoms. vote "barry" 2012. biebler
over and out.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by blocula

 

So the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not proof enough for you?

Or how about the actual tax codes that exist in the USA where you have to have a reciept if audited, that provides for donating to charities and non profit organizations, which has to list, as it is a part of public record, where they get their donations from?


Many of those who you are speaking ill of, donate money and put money into these organizations as part of lowering their taxes, yes they do that, but the point it that they do.

Or how about Jon Huntsman Sr, is he such a bad guy, cause he is one of the top earners and has over a billion dollars in assets?
Before you answer that you may also want to consider his philosophy, he came into this world with nothing, and is going out that way, as he is determined to give away his entire fortune to help society.
en.wikipedia.org...

The point being that these people are donating money, yet they do not have to, nor are they accountable to anyone, not to you, not to me, just themselves and they are giving to the charity of their choice. Now as unappealing as that may seem that they are choosing to donate money that may or may not affect you, that is their choice. You can not turn around and dictate how people give money or to what.


But then again, perhaps you would prefer the slum lord Barny Frank, or others in congress, after all they have the largest amount of wealth in the US, that sits in the very halls of power, to make the very decisions that hold the USA back.

thanx for your comment...still,all we know is what we are told and i dont trust for a second those who are telling us and i find it hard to believe that the wealthy are giving away anything,at least not directly to the people that really need it..

in 1938 my grand parents bought a house in south,weymouth. mass. built on an acre of land on a quiet street. it came fully furnished! with 8 rooms,full size basement,full size attic,screened in porch and a garage...they paid $13,000 for it and at the time they were offered the acre of land next door,which they turned down,for another $50 dollars!...knowing all this, its painfully obvious and sinister whats being done to the middle class of the usa...and its evil.

How can anyone become filthy rich without hoarding or claiming ownership of Earths resources? Very few can accomplish this if any.

In order to bring your idea to light it is required that you have the labor to work your idea (taking advantage of your fellow man). No matter how bright or revolutionist your idea is...without the man power to bring it to frutrition it will remain an idea.

We've been bamboozled into thinking business owners are due all the respect for making a job for the people, when in actuality it should at the least be 50/50.