Certainly not what we have now. If it were so damned good Wall Street wouldn't have the rest of us on it's ass.

Yea, unfortunately you think "general welfare" means tax cuts for the rich. Please tell me where he said "Only listen to the rich and only do what they want"? Please tell me where in that quote he said "of the rich for the rich and by the rich".

You keep forgetting or deliberately omitting that he was huge on anti-trust. And Jefferson, having been a victim himself of bad deals by dishonest businessmen, which cost him dearly, would NOT side with you.

I'd say that 30 million people who either don't have jobs or don't have enough hours IS  a threat to the general welfare of our nation. I don't think "let them eat cake" was what he had in mind. I think he was far more liberal than you try to paint him out to be.

Arguing the "efficiency" of the tax code is what you are arguing which doesn't change who put us in this mess in the first place. I'd say he'd be on my side. I think he'd say, "well beyond, your class created all this pay gap and now that they are fighting back, you are bitching? Maybe if you had thought of that in the first place the government wouldn't have to be concerned about their welfare."

But it does say "general welfare" not "only protect the rich".

Unlike you he knew that people had different lives and different motivations and different desires.

You think "general welfare" means protect the rich and that government should only do what the rich wants.

Sorry, but if the past 30 years is your idea of "general welfare" you are out of your mind and completely out of touch with reality. I doubt those protesters think you are concerned with their "general welfare".

Evidence? I have never suggested the government do anything to help the rich. I don't think the federal government should do much of anything outside of the specifically enumerated powers. Everything else ought to be up to the states.

Evidence? 

Evidence? I would love to have a debate about TJ and his views. Good luck finding quotes to support your side, I have a lot of them. Maybe we could start a new thread on interpreting Jefferson? It would be a nice diversion from calling me greedy and potentially educational for those who haven't read a lot of his writings.

Where have I said that? I have repeatedly said I don't care what people do. I have long been a champion of doing whatever makes you happy. I often encourage people to take risks and attempt to achieve whatever it is that makes them happy. Every time I do, you rant at me about utopias. 

Where have I said that? I don't think the federal government should do anything outside of its specifically enumerated powers for anyone be they rich, poor or whatever. Read article 1 section 8 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html if it isn't on that list, I don't care who wants it done, I am against it.

I have routinely bitched about the direction our country has taken for the last century. I don't know how you paint me as a supporter of the last 30 years. Have you read any of the threads where I bitched about how keynesian economists have taken over both parties? How I argued that the push toward low interest rates for political reasons led to our current problems? How I have consistently argued for removing the federal reserve and their power over our economy? Exactly which policies passed in the last 30 years have you seen me advocate for?

Agreed. As a practical matter significant tax cuts can't happen until the deficit is dealt with. I think the emphasis should be on cutting spending but I would be willing to seriously consider supporting any proposal that balanced the budget and dealt with our upcoming financial crush of SS and Medicare even if it did include tax increases. 

Most of the time there is some overlap. The max amount I am willing to pay is usually above the minimum amount a prospective employee is willing to work for. In most cases, I suspect that the result of the negotiation is somewhat less than the employers maximum and more than the employee's minimum. This is partially due to the reality that often neither party is a top notch negotiator and the inherent incentive for both parties to make some kind of deal. Really, by the time your discussing wages the employer has decided they want the employee and the employee has decided they want the job. Neither side wants the deal to fall through because both sides believe they benefit from it.

Also, from the employers perspective there are good reasons not to pay an employee the absolute minimum they are willing to accept. An employee accepting the minimum is far more likely to find a new job. Many people accept low paying jobs while job seeking and leave two or three months in for something better paying. Training and hiring is expensive and making sure your pay is competitive makes it less likely a new employee will stray. 

I generally give out raises once a year around July and give out bonuses in December. My reasoning is that it boosts morale when people see their paychecks bump up and everyone loves Christmas bonuses setting them apart makes them feel appreciated consistently. Also, it makes the paperwork easier for payroll.

When I was an employee I asked for a raise every quarter but I rarely worked anywhere longer than a year. Most employers are willing to offer raises if you go in during a profitable time for the company, ask for a reasonable amount and have a strong argument supported by evidence that you are an asset to the company. The most powerful tool is having a competing job offer so you can threaten to go elsewhere.

Too many people quit looking for work just because they are employed. I don't get it, especially since so many people bitch about their jobs. It is much easier to negotiate for a good salary when your employer/potential employer knows you have another job to fall back on. Negotiations are about leverage and recognizing who has it and how to get it. 

Really, I think it is up for renegotiation whenever either side thinks it is appropriate. If a valued employee was offered a higher paying position I would like the opportunity to renegotiate. 

Um, I pay their salary, even when the company isn't profitable- so who else is giving the raise? What do you think would be the proper, non-egotistical way for me to phrase my answer to JC's direct question? Or is this just another thing where you attack me but don't have any alternative solution?

When did I ever say money is the only thing that motivates people? Money isn't even what motivates me. What gets me off is helping people create successful and profitable businesses and achieving their dreams. Money is necessary so I can then use to invest in more people and help them achieve their dreams. Ultimately, I would like to become an "angel investor" who does nothing but invest in creative start up companies and assists them. If I had the ability to invest in two to three a year, that would be perfect. I find that type of work extremely rewarding and pleasurable in a way that I never found work when I was employed and working solely for the cash.

I could find numerous instances on this forum where I actively encouraged people to pursue their dreams and when I have some knowledge that I believe may help I provide it freely. My message has consistently been, "If you are unhappy, you can change and do what you love." Obviously, if you are already doing what you love and are happy the message doesn't apply to you. But, I am disturbed by the number of people who seem to have a doom and gloom attitude that they cannot achieve whatever their dreams are.

I believe in most cases their dreams ARE possible or at the very least, there is something they could do that is similar enough to their dreams that they find satisfaction, happiness and fulfillment in their day to day lives. Every time I suggest this and perhaps provide an idea of how it might be possible you launch into your "life isn't a script" and "everyone doesn't want the same thing". Neither or which is relevant. Life isn't a script, but your decisions are a huge factor in the result- and I never suggested that everyone has or should have the same goals. I simply encourage people to attempt to achieve their goals whatever they may be. If your goal is to snort cocaine off a hookers ass I will be as happy for you as I would if your goal was to become the next Warren Buffett. 

As far as people who work for me, money IS the primary reason people work. The appraisal business isn't exactly sexy. Now the employees at the wine shop might work for discount wine or because the primary owner is hot, but I don't know, I don't have anything to do with their employment. For the most part, employees are not there for charity or because they think I am a swell guy (I am not hot) or for fun. The day they stop receiving money is the day they stop showing up for work. I actually worked for a place that had paychecks bounce and people didn't come to work the following week, imagine that. Whatever motivations you have for life, you probably go to work because you need the cash unless you are so wealthy you can afford to work for fun; most people aren't. And note, you used the term "those below you" not me. I generally consider workers to simply be selling me their labor, not below or owned or under me. 

I think it is clear that you have been far more demeaning than I in our conversations. I never once criticized the way you live your life, your chosen career, your income or the way you choose to spend or not spend your money (with the exception of throwing the greedy charge back in your face regarding your barber). I fully support and am happy for anyone who is happy with their life. Whether they are contributing a lot to society in general or absolutely nothing, whether they are Steve Jobs, or a crackhead in an alley- I don't care. I don't judge anyone for the decisions they make in life, I simply wish them the best and hope they find happiness. Your the one who thinks that at least some people have some kind of obligation to "society". I don't think anyone has any obligation to provide anything to society as a whole outside of not causing harm to others. Show ONE quote of me saying otherwise.

Meanwhile, you have accused me of being greedy, not paying my employees a fair wage, being selfish and immoral. You have criticized me for no reason other than that I run a small business. You have routinely taken my words out of context, ignored direct (see post #65) questions about your beliefs, and refused to provide any evidence to support your beliefs. I have always tried to answer questions directed at me, and when required have supplied evidence from original sources. You refuse to extend me the same courtesy and accuse me of demeaning others? You consistently attack me personally while ignoring my arguments or exaggerating them into some caricature and accuse me of demeaning others? 

I believe that my employees are competent enough to negotiate wages on their own without government force. I make contracts with them as equals, they are selling me something I need (their labor) and I am trading something they need (money & business structure) at a rate that both parties find agreeable. I think your position is demeaning them because you apparently think they are helpless victims who are so incapable and incompetent that they allow big bad Beyond Saving to take advantage of them. They aren't. They don't need you to mommy them and treat them like children. They are capable of making their own decisions about where they work, how much they work and how much they earn. Like I said, if at any time they believe I am unreasonable and we can't negotiate a deal, they are free to go work elsewhere or even to start their own company to compete with me.

Well at least you aren't wishing for me to fail anymore, that is nice. Perhaps you can explain why we "need" three classes?  I can think of no economic reason why there HAS to be a poor class. It wouldn't destroy the economy if everyone who is currently poor was able to get a good paying job and be considered middle class. Of course, there will always be some people who choose not to work, like my brother for example who is a missionary and is poor by choice. But there is no good reason why people have to be poor for any reason except choice.

I think it is a worthy goal to create an economy where everyone who applies themselves is at least middleclass, and only those who choose to not work are poor. Yeah, it is a "utopia" in the sense that there will always be poor people for reasons of disability, drug use etc. But saying we "need" the poor implies that we should do things to keep them poor. And we don't so we should do things that increase the ability of the poor to participate more fully in our economy so that they are no longer poor. Which kind of goes back to the earlier discussion I had with JC in this thread. I don't have an easy answer, but I think it is generally positive to improve poor areas and eliminate poverty. 

My words don't need translation thanks. I have some experience with the english language, I said what I said and it has absolutely nothing to do with "might makes right".