There is one issue for the right, transfer every part of the new wealth of this country to the top

They have achieved that for the last 35 years, where every dime of the new profits from the richest country in the world has gone to the top. While at the same time , the middle class and poor have had massive increases in debt. Again a transfer to the top but it's not fast enough, they want it all yesterday. That is what the small hands budget represents. There has been no time in history where more people have voted against their best interest then now.

 

Funny how many on the left are rich.

 

What ever that means. ya some people that are on the left are rich but along with that wealth they also have a conscience and care about someone other then themselves.

 

Like Weinstein right?

How could they. They are rich, the enemy of the envious left.

 

Stick to the thread or go away. If you don't have a response why in the hell would you write nonsense about something else , that some how in you mind justifies the transfer of wealth to the top.

 

Don't forget: kill Grandma and starve the children.

 

Can't take getting a response to your posts eh?

 

Response????. This is the thread"
There is one issue for the right, transfer every part of the new wealth of this country to the top" and your post "Like Weinstein right?

How could they. They are rich, the enemy of the envious left." What the hell does that have to do with anything. Jbander to brain dead , what the ****.

 

I always love this post, the right is so confused and mentally incapable that they will accept this out of hatred for you name it. This is what they want for this country. They want all wealth to be forced to the top and they want the middle class and poor destroyed, even though many are part of that same middle class and poor. This will destroy this country and they don't give a dam about that either, just as long as their hate is fed. It's either that or they are just not very bright and are getting tooled.

 

Ah yes, yell typing making you think you actually have a point. Tsk.

 

What's this? Another BULL**** thread?
If those who persistently complain would just get off their A$$ and begin contributing as productive members in our economy instead of griping that those who do are not providing them with enough funding to consume more, perhaps then they begin to understand that freedom and free are not synonymous in every way. Little in life is free, and while you're free to consume all you want of that which is free, cease making demands which exceed the value of which you present to the societies in which you are allowed to live.

 

Look here--it would be one thing if what you claim were true, but over time complications develop.

I was a good worker and contributed as much as I could to a deferred comp fund,--and I'm still wondering if that lowered my SS payment amounts.

Secondly, I lost about half the value in my fund in 2008--and before it could come back up fully my employer switched my fund to another, undervalued one, cutting off any chance of a full recoup.

Now I hear my former employer is switching everyone's funds to a new provider, who will arbitrarily sell off our funds and buy into new provider-controlled ones. The possibilities of loss here are considerable. Additionally, it appears this new provider only deals with annuities, so I would no longer have control of my ready assets as I do now. What that would do is give me a few more dollars--not many-- a month, but leave me with no way to get a large enough lump sum to handle an emergency such as a need to relocate, etc.

Admittedly my present fund provider recently raised its fees--but at my stage of the game I would rather pay higher fees to an entity that I have been dealing with for some time and that appears to know what it is doing with my investment.

All kinds of things are built into the law taking away financial control by people who manage to save up a bit. If I had known my former employer could play with my investment like this I would have sought another way to save.

 

Allow me to ask you a question, How much wealth increase did you acquire as a result of this or other complaint posts?

Are you claiming that your employer forced you to participate in the fund you refer to?

 

IMO it mainly kept up with inflation.

It was the only way to benefit from the tax advantages of deferred comp.

 

My question was "How much wealth increase did you acquire as a result of this or other complaint posts?"

Perhaps the 'only' way provided by your employer, but NOT the only way.

 

I expect the financial laws of the country to be fair and equitable, and make posts like this with that in mind.

My job was an extremely demanding one that usually kept me working about ten hours a day, plus a lengthy commute. I did my job, and I expect the lawmakers and financial experts to do theirs, fairly and equitably. IMO it is part of the social compact we are operating under, and fairness is a necessity in a complex. cooperative society.

I do not have a business degree, and I had neither the time nor the funds to consult experts. If everyone in our society has to be a financial expert in order to attain fairness, there is something deeply wrong with our financial system. Financial services are supposed to be just that--services, not a licence to predate.

 

All I can say is I hope you find the help you need.

 

a nothing comment. your wasting bandwidth