Lets add more to the Paris Hilton file. Isn't she huge into marketing her name on products? Perfume, clothing, hand bags all need employes to design, market, manufacture, ship, receive, and sell. I am guessing she does not clean her own house and after her past issues should not drive a car when going out at night. All paid, created jobs.

Can't have dirt under those valuable finger nails. The landscaping is a created paid job. Which is a good thing neighbors wouldn't want pink bushes.

If she does enough public events on the go a paid stylist is on the payroll. Maybe even a separate hair dresser and clothing supplier/designer.

Got to look good in those pictures, a paid trainer is a must. Give me one more sit up Miss Hilton feel the burn.

I could do this all day, but as a job creator myself the more business to business spending the more we all bennifit. I must get back to my patriotic duty.

Pink bushes? Am I thinking something else?

No what you are thinking of have been shaved down to the trunk. What I am referring to has not had any maintenance in some time but was died pink to make it look like it had.

How is it disproportionate. In this country the rich are left with a ton of money. None of them eat of dumpsters.

Seriously, the income inequality in this country is undemocratic and economically unsustainable.

What do you benefit by defending the status quo?

You can move out of and into higher income brackets. Defining what is too much or a "ton" is how we get to be like Europe.

@Keith Schmitz: There are always going to be rich people. You need to get over it. They did better than us; they are probably better educated and they may even be more physically appealing when they're all coiffed-up. No reason to beat them into the ground. Heck, they are already paying our taxes, we should thank them for it.

Another BS fallacy because everyone pays all kinds of taxes.

Anybody with a brain realize that the reason why those people don't pay taxes is, get this, THEY HAVE NO MONEY.

So hard to figure out.

Oh, and by the way half of those people have some kind of disability.

Keith: Half of the 50% who pay no income tax are disabled?
I think your disability is clear to the rest of us if that is your contention.
Many low wage earners get all of their withholding back- and then some.
Here is a wake up call for you, Keith- Those of us who do pay taxes have no money either. So quit your crying and get your hand out of the donation jar.
The Country is $15 Trillion in debt, and you think it isn't a spending problem?
That makes you an idiot. Being stupid is not a legitimate disability.

@Keith Schmitz: "those people", which is Half of American wage earners "HAVE NO MONEY" and 50% of that population is disabled? Can you cite any reference to support that silly claim?

Can't wait for your book to come out: "All I Know About THOSE PEOPLE" by Keith Schmitz.

Keith never takes his checkbook out- or any other book for that matter.
Speaking about books Keith....

They also create bubbles, they buy politicians, they ship jobs overseas, bank money overseas...you get my point.

No no gets your point. I didn't know you could hire someone from Thailand to mow your lawn, cut your hair, cater your meal, decorate your house, do your books and defend you in court.

Damn John, I am so glad I didnt vote for you, you certainly did a good job of sounding moderate, you are a damn socialist.

And being a socialist is bad because...?

At some point you run out of someone else's money. We have found that point.

@Ron Abalone: You sound jealous. Change religions to one that supports reincarnation, and come back for a second try to become a 1 percenter. Go to school, study hard, take some risk and who knows. You may be a CEO one day in the next life.

Perhaps it has something to do with companies being so much larger and complex these days--the responsibilities of the CEO has grown tremendously over the past few decades as more and more businesses grow to global proportions...

CowDung - I will give you that companies have become much bigger, and CEOs have bigger jobs. I invest in over 70 public companies, and if you do that type of investing also, have you noticed most of the proxy statements are primarily devoted to voting on higher compensation packages for those CEOs, whether stock options, bonuses, performance incentives, higher annual salaries, golden parachutes, etc.? And the pay does not vary that much between their good years and bad. I swear they must spend half their time optimizing their total pay packages.
So the compensation system for the top 1% has changed drastically, not like the old factory CEO that drove the new Buick, earned 10 times more than the factory worker, but definitely lacked the hubris of the international CEO with the stable of Lamborghinis and Bugattis.

So your solution is to tax the rich guy at 90%, giving the government the money which they will waste and spend on their friends, like Solondra. Or over promise entitlements and spread the wealth which very few ever see.

Or

Enact laws that limit the amount of money you can earn as personal income. Requiring the extra to be split up by the employees or taxes that go back into the government creating the situation outlined above.

So basically in a nut shell communism. Which has proved such a success woldwide.

Since when are profits evil and stuff, or are you just incapable of creating more income yourself?

Steve - No, I would not tax the wealthy 1% at 90%, more like the pre-Bush tax rates. The Solandra situation needs to be investigated by a Republican special prosecutor. Entitlements need to curtailed where needed in the new economic world created by the Great Recession.
No, I would not put a limit on how much an individual can make, they just end up in a marginally higher tax bracket.
And I am definitely not a Communist or even a socialist. Good god man, your back in the Cold War.
I think I would be safe in matching my net worth to yours, and winning. You may beat me on current income, but not when matching my previous earning years.
You are trying to demonize me, I never said anything like what you are attributing to me. As a spokesman for the super-rich, you may want to drop back to blogging about your belief that professional wrestling is an honest sport.

I was a real wrestler, hate that fake crap. The rich are rich because of freedom in the market, I will defend that rich or poor myself.

I don't see any bennifit to raising taxes, aka revenue on anyone right now. The gov. can not control it's spending. As a young business owner I don't see any reason to reward their bad habits, especially with income that will not reduce the problem. When you get someone to quick smoking crack the last thing is to let them smoke crack all day for years on end.

The highlight of this is Obama, the senate and the house did not raise taxes when they had the optimal opportunity and full control. Obama keeps talking about it, pay your fair share whatever that means.

Your solution does not do anything to reduce the super rich or close the "gap" between the middle class. It just raises their taxes 4-5% and reduces their spending 4-5%. It's symbolism, hey we got you while some of us depend on that 5% spending. Even if the spending is savings or asset collection.

Referring to someone as a Dumbass in French would be
vous êtes un connard

Très amusant!

C'est très amusant quelque temps!

What loan?

JWU - http://www.jsonline.com/business/88705292.html

@Steve ... thank you. Certainly appears from the article that the money was used for operating expenses .... which did not include buying any books. Sounds like the Solyndra of Shorewood!

Yep. A bad business model from the beginning but the gov. seems to find those and invest, just like Solyndra. You don't have any customers, meh no worry here is some money because you fit the mold of what we are trying to force on the public.

The bookstore fiasco paints him as someone that likes the game when it's played on his terms, but then argues against any initiatives that support small business owners .... because they are suddenly the bad guys that are only out to screw the working man and woman of WI. Hypocritical, indeed.

Simply CCAP any of the regular lefties on Patch and you will see a litany of unpaid bills, foreclosures and other shenanigans where they do not honor their word in paying what they say. Typical of the left, no reason to candy coat who they are, expose them for the lying snakes that we all know they are.

I must share my opinion that I find it distasteful when posters choose to investigate other commenter(s) on this website with whom they disagree, then post personal information about them on Patch. It's a different issue if someone has written an article under the Patch banner using their own name. But these threads are really provided for info-tainment--they have no legal intent or purpose.

I'm sure it's not intended, but it could appear as bullying. I believe these boards provide a valuable opportunity to share information and hone viewpoints.

@Alfred: Your hard work has paid off. Well done. Here's hoping that you will get to keep the fruits of your labor and not have it given away to those that dream about entitlements.

Alfred
No I would not consider you part of the 1%, more like a middle class person tipping toward the upper end. My net worth is also over $1M, my house and second house ares paid for, no debt, I save. My current income is not nearly as high as it was.
I think a big difference is that I am not sociopathic. I do not call people that have a different point of view Dumbasses right off the bat, or wailers, howlers, silly, and crazy.

@Alfred -- I compute the 1% by income rather than net worth. You can be a 'millionaire' on paper but have a much lower yearly income. You do realize that income tax breaks for people earning millions in a single year ends up raising taxes for those on down the earning scale to make up for it. It raises property taxes as well.

You paid for your house, so you ought to be able to live in it regardless of your income. Same goes for me.

Alfred - A small percent of us go through life without the burden of a conscience. That would be very convenient and make life a lot simpler. I think what you are calling "guilt" is a concern for the greater good, and others who may not have been as fortunate in life.
Guilty as charged, I understand your contempt for such feelings.

@Jay - Good for you for reading the proxy materials and voting against those that have the nerve to be highly compensated for mediocre or worse results . Not sure who the stockholders are that seem to automatically vote for the incumbent CEO and all those complicit Directors on the Board. Having worked for and met with several CEOs of major companies, they are smart, work very hard and work during most of their waking hours, but no, never met one worth the tens of millions in annual pay many make.