English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Private wealth specialists Lewis Schiff and Russ Alan Prince found the number of Americans with $1 million to $10 million had risen to 8.4 million households -- or 7.6 percent of U.S. households -- and was growing at 15 percent a year.

But instead of entering the echelons of the elite, these new millionaires adhere to middle-class values, earning their money rather than inheriting it, working 70 hours a week, and choosing neighborhoods based on the quality of schools.

2007-11-01 08:21:06 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

11 answers

It's a dirty little secret they don't want you to know about.

2007-11-01 08:26:24 · answer #1 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 2 3

Bush's bad policies are mainly international with several domestic. And as for the millionaires they would have still earned their millions without Bush's government. Our economy is so vast and huge that people still earn during good and bad economic times. You cannot judge the health of the country's economy based on a list of millionaires. You have to look at the total outlook. Right now we have the biggest deficit ever. We are financing our country's wars using Chinese and other foreign money. Bush and Company have done so much bad image and reputation to our country.

2007-11-01 08:29:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I agree with Erin. If you look at the number of people which have increased in our world, it really is about the same. There is an area where our young people are even starting to think "millionaire'. I just recently read where a young lady at 17 is now a millionaire because she started web pages t hat increased the MySPace industry. SHe now has three other young friends working for her. IN three years, she amassed her income into the millions. I also believe that our creative energies are increasing and there are more ways to make money. I see carts where people are selling food items, clothes, and whatever else they can. As a school teacher, I am finding that I have to work harder and do other odd jobs just to make ends meet.

2007-11-01 08:34:21 · answer #3 · answered by THE SINGER 7 · 1 3

Things being bad under a Bush isn't a matter of no one being able to prosper. The bad part is that middle class is disappearing and that we are becoming a nation of "haves" and "have nots". Fyi, this isn't all Bush's fault, but I once read that the average American 18 year old in 1971 earned the equivalent (in 2003 dollars) $40K per year, when you adjust for inflation. With America's current wage stagnation, the average 18 year old could not come close to that (unless he/she worked two or more jobs).

2007-11-01 08:30:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

psychological ailment. word that via way of reality honestly each and each and each little thing on your checklist is something actual liberals rather say on television and in print that optimal liberal responses you get will deny that any liberal thinks any of those matters. something will in undemanding phrases call you an fool for seeing any difficulty with any of them. evaluate: Liberals honestly declare: > expanding the biosphere will eliminate existence from the planet > Temperatures somewhat lots as warmth via way of reality the medieval era are unsurvivable. > the trend that each and each physique all started around the time of the american Revolution and which SLOWED via ability of a million/2 around the time of the employer Revolution grew to become introduced approximately via ability of the employer Revolution. > That center tips coach an exceedingly susceptible correlation between temperature improve and CO2 concentrations and a almost suitable correlation between temperature and image voltaic cycle proves CO2 improve motives warming and the image voltaic cycle isn't even somewhat. > That those comparable cores coach CO2 ranges upward push AFTER warming starts off in undemanding phrases proves that reason FOLLOWS result. > evaluating "yesteryear's" Arctic temperature to "in the present day's" ecu temperature is a robust and valid thank you to degree temperature substitute. > in the journey that your Eighteen Nineties predictions approximately what we'd see from 1998-2013 thoroughly skipped over THE MARK and you at contemporary admit you're at a loss to describe it - you are the main impressive functional authority. > in the journey that your Eighteen Nineties predictions approximately what we'd see from 1998-2013 have been given right here actual IN each and each element, you're a politically paid-off and punctiliously discredited hack and liar. word that the two you DO have self assurance each and each a type of matters or you're a "climate substitute denier." there is not any center floor.

2016-12-30 13:03:32 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Do you ever get the feeling that there might be too much kool-aid for sale?

Perhaps there is a an over-population of parrots on the left?

Just wondering?

2007-11-02 23:39:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Because liberals value equality, so if one person becomes successful and another does not, it's "bad". The gap between the rich and poor has grown under Bush (mostly because our service-based economy values the educated), but the poor have not suffered as a result.

2007-11-01 08:30:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

At the risk of sounding like Lou Dobbs, there are more new millionaires because the middle class is an endangered income level. There are also way more people hovering just above the poverty line than there were before him, and those families outnumber the new millionaires.

2007-11-01 08:27:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7 3

Its the new Guilded Age. By destroying the middle class, there is plenty of wealth to concentrate in the hands of the already well-to-do. We are seeing the advent of a new era of Social Darwinsim. Herbert Spencer would be proud.

2007-11-01 08:28:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

If wealthy people getting wealthier was the only measure of a president's success, then you should see how much better they did under the Clinton Administration! He left Dubya in the dust on that account!

2007-11-01 08:30:05 · answer #10 · answered by HyperDog 7 · 0 4

because the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer

2007-11-04 04:31:44 · answer #11 · answered by Melody D 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers