Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of WaterStreet
WaterStreetFlag for United States of America

asked on

Which theory on Romney’s taxes do you think fits?

See Ten theories on Romney’s taxes
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/03/10_theories_on_romneys_taxes_salpart/

I think #10 in combo with #6.

Which do you think?

Will he release them and when?
Avatar of Tlingit
Tlingit
Flag of United States of America image

I think it is none of these.  Once again bias by left wing conspiracy.  There should be a number 11, which I will add right now.

11.)  It could be he is just following the law, which requires the last two years.  If this is all that is required, then what is the big deal?  John McCain only supplied two years of tax returns when he ran against Obama in 2008.  If it was all right with McCain, then it should be all right with Romney, right?
I honestly have no idea what might be in there. The problem for Mitt is that while he is not required to show any other taxes, he is expected to.

While McCain has not shared more than 2 years of taxes, there was nothing that seemed shady or questionable in his income that caused anyone to care to see more.  Mitt has questions surrounding his income that has caused people to ask for more. When others were asked, they showed and it was no big deal. Mitt using the "I don't have to" defense doesn't work here.

Refusing because "I don't have to" is the last answer that satisfies a question. Try that with a suspicious wife asking where her husband was all night and see how that works. Husband saying he don't have to tell doesn't resolve the situation, and the only reason not to tell is if the truth is worse than the suspicion.

Romney is in a bad spot over this. While it might be nothing, he sure doesn't act like it is nothing, or he would have just released them. To not do so otherwise is illogical.
While McCain has not shared more than 2 years of taxes, there was nothing that seemed shady or questionable in his income that caused anyone to care to see more.

That sounds smiliar to Fast and Furious scandel where Obama stepped in and said Eric Holder doesn't have to release any more documents.  What is Obama hiding?

The big difference between this and Fast and Furious is that Romney doesn't have any legal obligation to do so.  He is within the law so why should he put out more?
>>That sounds smiliar to Fast and Furious scandel where Obama stepped in and said Eric Holder doesn't have to release any more documents.  What is Obama hiding?

Ahhh yes, another graduate from the conservative school of deflection - lets stay on subject of Romney taxes - feel free to start another question on F & F.

>>He is within the law so why should he put out more?

Did you read what I posted above? That is the answer to that question. If computers were voting for him then he doesn't have to release anything more than the legal requirement. These are people voting. Feeling means a lot to who wins this thing and he is avoiding an issue that the easy answer to is just to release the returns.

It makes him look bad and is a bad decision unless releasing them is worse than the perception. Re-read what I wrote about the husband/wife thing.

He's hiding something, and people don't like that. He will lose votes over it. Period.
SOLUTION
Avatar of Tlingit
Tlingit
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of WaterStreet

ASKER

Romney has really boxed himself in, possibly, a lose-lose situation.  There is possibly something very damaging in his tax records, or he used extremely clever, but legal, techniques to pay little or no taxes.   Either way, it will be very damaging.  As long as he continues to not disclose, the opposition continues to keep the issue alive and above many other news items.  If he discloses, the opposition and media will have a feeding frenzy.

The GOP and his backers must be extremely uncomfortable with this predicament.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
The issue is the radical transfer of wealth from the majority of the country to the top 1%.


You guys accuse me of my right wing talking points, above is straight out of MSNBC communist rhetoric, Redistribution of Wealth.

If Romney had taken advantage of tax loopholes, he is perfectly within his rights to do so.  If Romney invested his money in offshore accounts, he is also within his rights to do so.  Right now he has the freedom to do what he wants with his money since he made it himself, which I know is a foreign concept to liberals.  Who am I to tell Romney where to invest, how to invest, and when to invest?  Who am I to tell him to take advantage of this loophole or that loophole, or not to take advantage of them?  Until the tax laws are changed, the rich will continue to take advantage of loopholes, so change the tax laws!

Despite the loopholes, the 1%, as they are called, the rich still pay the majority of the taxes.  Most jobs are created by the rich.  So it's ironic when liberals attack the rich because they want to demonize the rich and at the same time take their money.  Kind of like when Obama says, "You didn't build that, someone else did."  Then he looks at his watch and says "I gotta go" as he goes to a fund raiser for his compaign that costs $35,000.00 a plate to attend.  Can you Waterstreet attend this fund raiser, can you Russo attend this fund raiser, can you Beetos attend this fund raiser?  I know I can't.  Who can attend something that costs so much?  Humm.  Let me think.  I think it's a four letter word.  Can we all say the RICH?

Gosh dang it, anyway!  You mean Obama hangs out with the rich, the same people he abhores along with the liberal base!!  Shame, shame, on him.  I thought he was one of us.  I guess not.  You mean Obama is rich too?  That can't be.  Let's tax him at 75%.  Better yet 80%.  What are we going to do when the rich runs out of money?  Who is going to pay for everything?  That does not matter.  We have Obama.  He will take care of us.  He will think of something.  He's the smartest man ever to live.
Avatar of beetos
beetos

No one is saying to abhore the rich - just that they have the financial influence to bend the laws to favor them.   This has been going on for decades now, and it's lead to egregious banking practices due to eroded regulations that nearly caused a global financial meltdown.

Offshore tax havens and foreign bank accounts are used to beat the US tax system all the time.   Romney has no doubt taken advantage of these vehicles, and that's why he doesn't want to show his tax records.

We can argue all day about the ideological "transfer of wealth" vs. "spread the wealth around" but the facts don't lie - the wealth in this country has radically gravitated to the top 1%.  

Trickle down failed.
just that they have the financial influence to bend the laws to favor them.
Obama has had three and half years to change that.

Offshore tax havens and foreign bank accounts are used to beat the US tax system all the time.
So, I don't care what he does with his money.  Once again, as stated above, he has the freedom to invest it where and when?

the wealth in this country has radically gravitated to the top 1%.
So, what system would you embrace to make it fairer, if that is your ultimate goal?  Why should the rich pay more taxes when the government is only going waste their money?  Not only the rich's money, but my money and yours as well.  Look at Solyndra and GSA and all the money wastes.  Why should we pay more?
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Top 1% pay almost 40% of all federal taxes.

That's because they have all the frigging money!


There's obviously an ideological difference here.

Conservatives believe that  only the wealthy are worth anything - it doesn't matter if the poor work hard, they're still just rabble, expendable and worthless.

Liberals, even rich liberals, believe that no one becomes wealthy entirely on their own, and that we're all connected via our society and the stronger that society is, the better off the country is.

You could be rich and open a company that makes a great product, but with no customers, you won't be open or rich for very long.  It's consumers that drive the economy and thus are the real job creators.


Whether or not you even agree with the premise, many Americans do and in my opinion that's why Romney doesn't want to release his tax records.     And I don't think it's entirely nefarious either - the political machine can create problems where none exist.  Something that may have seemed innocent at the time of tax filing can be shown in a very negative light to mean much more than it really does.   And if they actually do contain something that would give the average American pause ( which they likely do ) it would probably derail his entire campaign.
>>why Romney doesn't want to release his tax records.    

It would be beyond stupid for Romney to release his tax records, regardless of the lies put out by Harry Reid and his guilty until proven innocent approach.  The community organizer and the left will use Romney's earned income against him, make more shit up, and demonize him for being successful.

Romney's success should be something people should strive to emulate, not demonize.

But I guess when you have high unemployment, record welfare recipients, trillions in new debt, and an infamous health law,  you need to turn the focus on your opponent so as to not have your record examined (as if the media would anyway).



>>That's because they have all the frigging money!

Let's get off the lie that the rich don't pay their fair share.
Thanks
>>Obama has had three and half years to change that.

It's not a law that makes that the way it is, it's society structure and has been since the time of Kings and Peasents. It's not going to change.

>>So, what system would you embrace to make it fairer, if that is your ultimate goal?

This does always seem to be the question that liberals cannot answer, as there is no easy fix here. Better tax laws is the usual answer and less loopholes. The problem is that ANY loopholes are going to be used mostly by the rich because they pay to have someone do their taxes that knows the loopholes. The poor just get them done cheap.

>>The rich are rich because of what they do, and the poor are poor because of what they do.

Often yes, but not always. Some are born into their situation of rich or poor and while changing that is possible, it is hard to go up in the society scale, but it can be done.

>>The rich produce and the poor contribute nothing.

No society can survive without the rich, nor without the poor. They both contribute, though in different ways. See the classic sci-fi movie Metropolis for a good example.

>>Whether or not you even agree with the premise, many Americans do and in my opinion that's why Romney doesn't want to release his tax records.

Correct. To be elected POTUS it doesn't matter which is right. It matters what the populace of voters believe. If the public believes Romney is some rich fat cat skimming the system with loopholes and feels it isn't fair, then it hurts him, whether it is right or not.

>>It would be beyond stupid for Romney to release his tax records, regardless of the lies put out by Harry Reid and his guilty until proven innocent approach.  The community organizer and the left will use Romney's earned income against him, make more shit up, and demonize him for being successful.

Yes that would happen, but will holding them back make him look worse? Tricky spot he is in regarding this.

>>Romney's success should be something people should strive to emulate, not demonize.

Yes it should. But when someone tells you to jump on top of the 100 story building when you feel you are just a 2nd floor person with bad legs, it is easier to demonize them. Unfortunately too many people are in this mindset.
>>Better tax laws is the usual answer and less loopholes.

Why is cutting spending never an option?  The more they tax, the more they spend.  It's not the job of the producers in this country to fund bankrupt solar companies, bankrupt car companies, or high government pensions.



>> If the public believes Romney is some rich fat cat skimming the system with loopholes and feels it isn't fair, then it hurts him, whether it is right or not.

Exactly why Obama and Reid can get up there and say Romney's not paying his taxes.  The idiots that call themselves Democrats don't know any better.  They're just worried about hating someone with money and collecting their welfare check.



>>No society can survive without the rich, nor without the poor.

The poor should get on their hands and knees and kiss the asses of the wealthy.  If it weren't for the wealthy, there would be less jobs, less investment, and a poorer society.
>>The poor should get on their hands and knees and kiss the asses of the wealthy.  If it weren't for the wealthy, there would be less jobs, less investment, and a poorer society.

Wow. I'm sure the wealthy would be fine kissing the asses of the poor too then. Without the poor there would be no cleaning of things, less manufactured, and no labor force. They both need each other and neither should be looked at in that way.
There will always be the poor. If it weren't for the rich, they'd live like Obama's brother - $20 a year and calling a hut home.


Barack Obama's 'lost' brother found in Kenya
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html
>>There will always be the poor. If it weren't for the rich, they'd live like Obama's brother - $20 a year and calling a hut home.

There will always be poor and there will always be rich. If it wasn't for the poor the rich would live in dirty homes without gardens and not have iPads or other luxury items because there are none to build them.
In this country, there will always be poor because poor people do what they do to be poor.

Same for the rich.
>>In this country, there will always be poor...

and in what society is there not poor? Every society has both. This country is no different.
If you're poor in this country, you're poor because of your own actions.  It's your own fault.

(Yes, i'm aware of the .005% exceptions)
>>If you're poor in this country, you're poor because of your own actions.

Does this not hold true in other countries and societies?
>>Does this not hold true in other countries and societies?

Yes, in a free society where capitalism is prevalent., though we're losing our economic freedoms in this country to Obama regulations - lifting a lot of them would do a lot to grow the economy.  One in particular is Obamacare and the 49th employee.


1. Starting in 2014, the hiring of a company's 50th worker will cost an extra $40,000 per year.

Actually harmful to companies wishing to grow.
>>Yes, in a free society where capitalism is prevalent

No, not just a free society with capitalism. ANY and EVERY society has a rich and poor class. There is no society of capitalism, socialism, communism, monarchy, or any type that has everyone on the same financial level.

The problem liberals have with this in this country is the disparity between the highest and lower classes. While the classes are necessary, it is not necessary for the highest class to be so far above the lower classes. This is the basis of the liberal argument. Not that everyone should be equal, but everyone should not be at such extremes of the scale.

The trickiest part is that there is no easy solution. Taking away the money of those that earned it is not the right answer, or there is no desire to earn that and to push forward, so the country becomes stagnant. Giving that money to those that did not earn it only creates dependency and again creates an environment to not advance on ones own merit.

It is a delicate balancing act of letting those who earn keep that which they earn, but also providing services for those that are not able to support themselves. Even if through their own choices, we are not a society that just lets people starve to death.

My usual word of Balance comes to mind again. Again it is not something we are good at lately as everyone thinks in extremes.
If you're poor in this country, you're poor because of your own actions.  It's your own fault.

We're all entitled to our own opinions, but this is so radically false and completely wrong that it's appalling.
>>We're all entitled to our own opinions, but this is so radically false and completely wrong that it's appalling.

I don't entirely agree. The majority of people in a poor situation can, though incredibly difficult it is, work themselves out of it to a point. Going from poverty to the top 10% is not usually very realistic, but few people that are in a situation of poverty are without a means to get themselves to a more comfortable level. It is just about doing what that requires through all the negatives that being in poverty piles on top of you.

So in essence, your actions will keep you in poverty or get you out of it. It is hard, but for most attainable, though many do not do what is required to attain it.
"It is hard, but for most attainable,"

The most determining factor in how much wealth you will obtain over the course of your life is how much wealth you're born with.

You seem to think there are opportunities for everyone everywhere, and that is simply not the case.

Look at the voter ID laws - to you and I it seems simple enough, just show your drivers license, what's the big deal?   Well, if you're living in poverty and have no drivers license, and no means, time, or money to travel the 2-3 hours to the nearest place you can get an acceptable ID, you're SOL.    Given all we have, it's difficult to understand how something seemingly so simple could be so unsurmountable.


Class ascendancy—namely that each successive generation will have a higher standard of living than its predecessor—is a central theme in American literature and culture and plays a key role in the American dream. While social class in the United States is thought to be largely based on achievement, "social mobility is relatively low in the United States",[39] and climbing the social ladder is more difficult for those born into less advantageous positions.[5][13]

Occupation (perhaps the most important class component), educational attainment, and income can be increased through a lifetime. However, factors such as wealth inheritance and local education system—which often provides lower quality education to those in poor school districts[40]—may make rising out of poverty a challenge. Class mobility in the United States decreased between the 1970s and the 1990s.[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States#Class_mobility
We're all entitled to our own opinions, but this is so radically false and completely wrong that it's appalling.

Why is it wrong?  If you are poor, you are there by your own circumstances.  Some poor people don't want to work.  Some are addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, to name but a few, and it is by their decision they do this.  Others are poor because lack of education and don't have the resources to become educated.  There are a lot of poor people now because of Obama's economy.

If you are poor, don't blame other people, blame yourself.  Why do we, as a society, always have to put blame on others for our short comings.  Does it make us feel better?  America never used to be that way.  This trend is getting worse and worse.  I've noticed the more liberal our country gets, the more we put blame on something else.
Why is it wrong?  

Here's why, from your own words:

If you are poor, you are there by your own circumstances.  

Circumstances are not a choice.


Some poor people don't want to work.  Some are addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, to name but a few, and it is by their decision they do this.
That's true, and it's not only the poor that are like this.  


 Others are poor because lack of education and don't have the resources to become educated.  

Again, this is a circumstance and not a choice.

There are a lot of poor people now because of Obama's economy.

Obama's economy?
>>The most determining factor in how much wealth you will obtain over the course of your life is how much wealth you're born with.

Correct, because few people have the will and drive it takes to break out of the poverty they might be born into, but it is possible to do so.

>>and climbing the social ladder is more difficult for those born into less advantageous positions.[5][13]

But it is not impossible. Just a much harder challenge.

>>may make rising out of poverty a challenge.

MAY is too soft a word. It DOES make it more of a challenge, but again, it is not impossible. If you make the effort to avoid drugs, find education, work hard, save more, and all those things we know make someone better, then you will be on a better path to rise out of the poverty.

Having to do this in a ghetto where people are all depressing around you, drugs are everywhere, parents don't care, and nobody there to help you, and in a shack of a house makes it an incredibly tough thing to achieve. Someone in a nice safe suburb with supportive parents and community has it a TON easier.

Both CAN do it though. The lower income person just has a lot more work to do it, but with the right actions, they can. Not everyone has that in them though.
Circumstances are not a choice.
Circumstances are created by the choices we make.  They both go hand in hand.  Circumstance, whether good or bad, is a by-product by the choices we make.  Right now government can't control the choices we make, but with Obama in office for a second term that will most likely change.  Our freedoms are taken away with every ticking hour he is in office.  Pretty soon our circumstance will be determined by the government instead of our personal choices.  That is the difference between liberals and conservatives.  One believes one can make their own choices, the other believes government should be making choices for the good of the people because they believe the individaul is too dumb to do it themselves.
Both CAN do it though. The lower income person just has a lot more work to do it, but with the right actions, they can. Not everyone has that in them though.


Not necessarily.   You've already said it's difficult, sometimes it's impossible.   CAN some do it?  Yes, and some do.  More often, and more likely  it takes several generations.    So even though they provided a better life for their children, the  poor but motivated ancestors die poor as well.

If you're poor and do all the things you said, but have some setback that's out of your control, you're likely back to square 1 and possibly worse off than you were.  If you're in a middle class family and in the same situation, it's more likely that you can get help to get through that rough patch and continue on, or have some sort of recourse so you aren't completely homeless.

The belief that the poor are poor because they choose to be, or because of their own inaction is as ignorant as it is disgusting.
If you're poor and do all the things you said, but have some setback that's out of your control, you're likely back to square 1 and possibly worse off than you were.

So your advice to the poor would be don't try to get out of the situation your are in?  Just wait for Obama because he will make you rich, or level the playing field.  From my experience every time the government steps in to try to help the poor by giving them government housing, the houses are trashed within a short period of time.  Like you said, it's not like that with all the poor, but with a great majority of them don't respect what they receive from the governmemt.  Do you know why?  Because there is no value in what they received.  It is something they haven't earned.  So they don't respect it, therefore the trash it.
Circumstances are created by the choices we make.  They both go hand in hand.  Circumstance, whether good or bad, is a by-product by the choices we make.  Right now government can't control the choices we make, but with Obama in office for a second term that will most likely change.  Our freedoms are taken away with every ticking hour he is in office.  Pretty soon our circumstance will be determined by the government instead of our personal choices.  That is the difference between liberals and conservatives.  One believes one can make their own choices, the other believes government should be making choices for the good of the people because they believe the individaul is too dumb to do it themselves.

This is complete BS.

Circumstances ARE circumstances - they aren't CHOICES.  They're the opposite of choices.  

You live and work on a farm.  That's your choice.  You work hard all your life.  Again, your choice.  Suddenly a 5 year drought kills all your crops and you're SOL.  That's a circumstance.   See the difference?

You're born in America.  The President decides the country should go to war.  That's a circumstance you have to deal with.   What are you supposed to do?  In Bush's words, "keep going to the malls and keep shopping".   You're born in Iraq.  The President of the US decides the country should go to war with your country.   Bombs start falling out of the sky on your home city.    What are you supposed to do?  Look for a higher paying job?  Leave the country and go....?   I know this is a radical example, and goes outside of the discussion of poverty vs. wealth in the US, but you can see that the same action causes different circumstances for different people.    

Why is that so hard to grasp?

You work hard, save money, buy a house in Colorado.  That's your choice.   A raging wildfire or tornado decimates your town.   You're SOL - that's a circumstance.   Yet, for some reason it's OK for the gov't to help those folks?




Also, please enlighten me - what FREEDOMS have you lost?   What 24 freedoms have you lost since yesterday?  

And your assertion that liberals think the gov't needs to think for you is also way off base.  It's closer to liberals think that government has a role in promoting things that are beneficial to society at large, and preventing things that are detrimental to society.   Conservatives believe "I got mine, screw everybody else".
Beetos, I think we are both saying the same thing actually. A small percentage can make it out of poverty. The hurdles are higher and the outlook is not nearly as bright as if you are in a better situation to start. Also the setbacks are more drastic when they do happen. Also in poverty you usually are much more on your own.

It still can be done, but is done by very few. Those that do took the actions and overcame the hurdles. Those that don't aren't bad or unworthy or less-than. They are just the average. For those that are born into wealth, being average is fine enough to keep you there. In poverty you have to be exceptional to get out.
So your advice to the poor would be don't try to get out of the situation your are in?  Just wait for Obama because he will make you rich, or level the playing field.  

No, absolutely not.   I'm just refuting the point that the poor are poor because they choose to be.  

As far as leveling the playing field however, yes, it is gamed for the wealthy.


From my experience every time the government steps in to try to help the poor by giving them government housing, the houses are trashed within a short period of time.  Like you said, it's not like that with all the poor, but with a great majority of them don't respect what they receive from the governmemt.  Do you know why?  Because there is no value in what they received.  It is something they haven't earned.  So they don't respect it, therefore the trash it.

To a degree maybe, but your conclusion may be flawed and is definitely way over generalized.

Are you suggesting that all government programs designed to help the poor are just a waste?  Or do some work?
Anthony - yes, we are in agreement.    And I'm not saying there aren't any poor that try to take advantage of the system rather than do for themselves, or try to do as little as possible.  There surely are.    But a statement like this is completely unacceptable:

If you're poor in this country, you're poor because of your own actions.  It's your own fault.

(Yes, i'm aware of the .005% exceptions)

In reality, it's more like .005% can actually make it out of poverty, not the other way around.
Conservatives believe "I got mine, screw everybody else".
I think this is a poor assessment on your part.  I am not rich but I don't consider myself poor.  I grew up poor but I improved myself and the government didn't help me.  I have my own business, the government didn't help with that either.  In fact they are more of a hinderance than anything else.  I did this on my own by going to school full-time and working full-time.  Working graves at 7-11.  Was I poor?  Yes.  But I knew my circumstances would change because of my hard work and education.  And they did.  Believe when I say this: If I can do it, then anyone can do it.  I don't think we should just lay down and wait for government to come and help us.

By the way Romney gave more to charity then Biden.  I think one year he contributed up to 17% in charity and Biden less than 1%.  So stop your poor picked on me stuff and saying conservatives think we should screw everyone because that is not true.  Our stance on a lot of issues seem harsh because it is not the easy way out.  It's often the harder way out but they produce results.  Sometimes we have to roll up our sleeves and jump in and work.  

WORK.  Imagine that!  Another four letter word.
>>In reality, it's more like .005% can actually make it out of poverty, not the other way around.

Negus plz.

If you're poor in this country, it is, without a doubt, your fault, unless you take in to consideration the government encouraging people not to work.

Hell, you can work your way up from a fry cook at mcdonalds to a district manager position.  

Keep in mind being "poor" here is not the same as it is else where.  Obama's brother doesn't have a cell phone, microwave, cable TV or other luxuries as the "poor" do here in the US.
Are you saying the poor don't work?    

Are you saying because you were able to take advantage of opportunities you had, everyone must have those same opportunities without negating circumstances that would prevent them from taking advantage of said opportunities?

How do you know how much Romney gave to charity if he won't release his tax records?
Keep in mind being "poor" here is not the same as it is else where.  Obama's brother doesn't have a cell phone, microwave, cable TV or other luxuries as the "poor" do here in the US.

Good one Eric.   The poor in a third world country don't have the luxuries that our disposable society affords the poor in one of the richest nations in the world.   What an astute observation.


If you're poor in this country, it is, without a doubt, your fault, unless you take in to consideration the government encouraging people not to work.

Go on brother - double down on your ignorance.   Spoken like a true Fox News believer.
>>How do you know how much Romney gave to charity if he won't release his tax records?

How do you know Obama's smart if he won't release his college transcripts or give a speech without a teleprompter?


--Beetos, Anthony...

Define poor in your world.
Are you saying the poor don't work?
Did I say the poor doesn't work.  Look, I even admitted that I was poor at one time but I worked.  I worked my way through college.


Are you saying because you were able to take advantage of opportunities you had
Everyone has the same opportunities.  I don't think 7 11 was an opportunity.  Now working at Ernest and Young is an opportunity.
Sometimes we have to roll up our sleeves and jump in and work.  

WORK.  Imagine that!  Another four letter word.

You were insinuating the poor don't work.


Getting a job at 7-11 was certainly an opportunity, and you were lucky to have it.   During your tenure there, were there any other applicants who wanted to work there but were turned away?  How about those that lived far enough from that 7-11 that employment there wasn't feasible?   Everyone DOESN'T have the same opportunities - that's just ridiculous.

Oh, and while you were working at 7-11, as meager as the pay may have been, the owner would have paid you less than that if he could have, except the government made the rule that says "the minimum wage you can pay an employee is $x.xx" so it looks like you DID have some help from the government, whether or not you want to admit it.
Beetos, thought I'd let you know.  Sean Hannity's radio program is about to start.