| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
I have neither the time nor inclination to jump into this particular love fest, but google the string "top 1% owns 85% of stocks" and read what comes up. Hint: it ain't 1%. Does your source include equities, mutual funds, and etfs from IRAs, 401(k)s, SEPS, corporate holdings? I suspect this 1% business is bull but I await education from the likes of Fatty and Kucinich Boy. | ||
| Doug_s |
The bottom 50% don't pay federal income taxes, so the rich are bailing out the rich. Much of the default lies with unsecured consumer debt. The repossession is the only way for the creditors to recover some of the losses, but the gap is still substantial. It isn't until the market "resets" that REAL wages and REAL prices will come back into balance. uh no, even if you pay zero taxes, you suffer when you lose everything you have. and those whose taxes consume enough of their incomes such that they have a hard time making ends meet, suffer from the bailouts more than the rich because the rich still have enough left over for necessities and luxuries, and with all the money being spent on bailing out the rich, there is less money for social services, education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. and, for those who pay taxes, at least 80% of those are not even close to being rich. they are the middle class. they still have to struggle; they are still negatively impacted by reduced social services, education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. but i know - you don't think govt should be prowiding any of that.... i agree, things won't get better until the economy resets. deflation scares a lot of folks tho - the ones who wanna keep the ponzi scheme of ever-increasing credit, and ever increasing consumption going... doug s. | ||
| Reindog |
Read your history. The rich always get richer. When historical hiccups happen the rich get poorer, then everyone also tends to share the same fate. Learn from the Rich. Earn from the Rich. Yearn to be Rich. But please don't burn the Rich. Patting myself on the back for the best post ever.  [historical hiccups happen] | ||
| Doug_s |
hey, i am sorry if i got a stat wrong. you caught me: "83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people." http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that- prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wip ed-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7#83-percent-o f-all-us-stocks-are-in-the-hands-of-1-percent-of-t he-people-1#ixzz0xA5EzHw5 doug s. | ||
| Davegess |
It does not really matter WHAT the statistic show. How people FEEL about how well off they are is the key thing. We (I mean the US and the Europeans) are, by pretty much any way you measure it, the best off people the world has ever had. Things are tough now but compared to the great depression or post war Europe we are doing well. BUT that does not really matter. How I fell I am doing is what is important. The inner city resident who sees others in town with big cars and big houses feels poor, even though the are vastly better off than a middle class person in Pakistan. IT is all about perception, not facts. | ||
| Doug_s |
reindog, read your history - sure the rich always get richer. but, there is a tipping point, that, when reached, leads to severe economic collapse, and/or wiolent uprisings. i am not really excited about either prospect. personally, i would prefer the much rarer economic reform... ymmv, doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Here let me help you: THIS is why he "poor" are getting poorer. It isn't because the rich are "stealing" it from the poor. The Federal Government is consuming more. In spite of the growth of the government, incomes have risen across the board bottom to top. Additionally, the "80% of those are not even close to being rich" folks are not paying the taxes either. Here's a little more help: http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html The top 5% pay 60% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay about 3%. This means that the other 37% is spread over those "middle class" folks, 45% of them. If you slice the pie a little thicker, those above $100,000 (top 10%) pay 70% of all the taxes. The bottom at about 3%. This means that the remaining 27% are spread over that middle 40%. The middle class of folks who aren't rich are NOT paying a disproportionate level. The bottom 50% who are the recipient class (pay no taxes, consume ALL of the government benefits) are not paying THEIR fair share. No I DON'T believe that the government should be providing services. The result is that they crowd out the capacity for the low and middle class to prosper. | ||
| Doug_s |
davegess, i agree w/your observations about perception; i stated as much in my prior posts. got jumped on for it, too - oh well... not sure, tho, that, i'd choose to be a poor american inner city resident vs a middle class pakistani... in your example, i think the middle class pakistani is better off in real terms. but, i am merely speculating here... doug s. | ||
| Doug_s |
fatty, i agree that govt spending is increasing at too great a rate, compared to income growth. interesting that it really starts to rocket up around 1975-80. and, the rate changes not much at all, until ~2000, where it seems to increase a bit. (it may have leveled off ever-so-slightly during the 1990's, but not much.) regarding tax rates, of course the rich pay the most taxes, they have the most money - doh! but, what is interesting is their actual tax rates - i wish my middle-income tax rate was as low as the actual taxes paid by the ultra wealthy... http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/27/no-to-olig archy/ http://www.benzinga.com/10/08/413504/time-to-get-r id-of-the-federal-income-tax note that i am not necessarily adwocating the positions taken in either of these articles - i find some merit and take issue with ideas in both - i am yust showing them for their info on tax rate inequality. doug s. | ||
| Court |
>>>>Learn from the Rich. Earn from the Rich. Yearn to be Rich. But please don't burn the Rich. I've never been hired by, fired by, paid a bonus by or made a major purchase or charitable contribution with the funds I received from a poor person. To me . . . and I'm not going to debate it, it's no more than personal opinion . . . yesterday was the most telling day in the last 3 years. The dystopia has commenced. First George Soros pulls out of the American markets, next a cohort of my wife's, Stanley Druckenmiller, says to hell with it and announces he's taking his $12,000,000,000 and going boating. The current lack of direction from Washington, in concert with a propensity to ignore convention and the laws of the land (see GM bankruptcy) has sent a strong message to investors, those very folks who make the wheels of commerce turn, that they can no longer evaluate, predict or quantify risk accurately as the rules start getting changed to suit individual cases. The same health care that was to "lower health care costs" already has them headed up at the fastest rate in history. For the first time in the history of the USA the federal government is mandating to citizens what they must buy or be subject to criminal prosecution. We're investigating, as criminals, anyone who questions what these folks are doing. Not only are the "rich" retreating but so are many of the middle class. In our house we have canceled 2 major purchases, and are considering putting another on hold. Like I've said for most of the past year, I think we've seen nothing yet and suspect that by 2Q-2011 (my original Badweb prediction date) that the fan will be thoroughly clogged. No one is at the wheel. Last week I was told by my "leaders" that we are on the road to recovery. Three days later the largest single weekly increase in unemployment claims is announced. I know this number is optimistic since so many folks are simply not looking. Rather than creating jobs . . . the current mindset is to increase unemployment and to find ways to fund unemployment and make it a viable alternative to working. To quote, loosely, Nancy Pelosi . . ."the greatest stimulus to the economy are more unemployment checks". My claws are pulled in. Cash, for the moment, is king. . . .I don't want ANY debt the next 18 months. Others will have varying opinions based on their circumstances. | ||
| Reindog |
Isn't this why the Declaration of Independence was written? Tyranny is here, folks. I haven't verified this so have at it. ----------------------- Please read this and think about what will happen to your income and taxes. Remember this when you vote in November. If you agree, please pass it on to you email list. In just 5 months, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves. On January 1, 2011, here's what happens... (read it to the end, so you see all three waves)... First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011. Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below: * The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15% * The 25% bracket rises to 28% * The 28% bracket rises to 31% * The 33% bracket rises to 36% * The 35% bracket rises to 39.6% Higher taxes on marriage and family. The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut. The return of the Death Tax. This year only, there is no death tax. (It's a quirk!) For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes, a business, a retirement account, could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Think of the farmers who don't make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don't have the cash sitting around to pay the tax. Think about your own family's assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn't make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That's 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax? Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013. Second Wave: Obamacare There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include: The "Medicine Cabinet Tax" Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). The "Special Needs Kids Tax" This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington , D.C. ( National Child Research Center ) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can not be used to pay for this type of special needs education. The HSA (Health Savings Account) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAsand other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Employer Tax Hikes When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include: The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers. Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can currently expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated." Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs. Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families. Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there. PDF Version Read more: <http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax- hikes-a5171#>; http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax- hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1 And worse yet? Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's! One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished! Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what... your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries..... On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income." - Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. - Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Doug, you've proffered both of those ideas before. They are false. If an individual who is wealthy could control how their income is created, THEN they might have a lower marginal tax rate. They simply can't. EVERY article you have posted has parroted the same source, Warren Buffett. It's just as false as the first time you posted it. It doesn't matter how many sources parrot Buffett. Believe it or not, the wealthy have one vote just like you or me. The "oligarchy" you post (again and again and again) are constantly over ridden by the masses of "recipient class" individuals in the bottom 50% of the economic schedule. That's what makes socialism so insidious. The recipient class has the ability, by voting in the Federal Government to act as their proxy, to vote to confiscate the wealth of the "donor class". As some point in time, and we are nearing that point, the "donor class" simply says no. They take their capital and go home. Government confiscates 97% of the wealth from the top 50% with the largest percentage never going to the "lower and middle classes" you hope to benefit. The Federal Government simply reallocates those funds to the individuals and corporations most likely to support their re-election. | ||
| Doug_s |
uh no, fatty, i am in fact correct, and it is you that are incorrect. it's not yust warren buffett who pays less of a tax percentage than i do, it's most of those at the top. The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record. Last year, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. But it’s not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It’s the multinational corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax—they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue. But, perhaps the most outrageous tax break given to multi-millionaires and billionaires happened this January when the estate tax, established in 1916, was repealed for one year as a result of President Bush’s 2001 tax legislation. This tax applies only to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of our population. This is what Teddy Roosevelt, a leading proponent of the estate tax, said in 1910. “The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.… Therefore, I believe in a…graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.” And that’s what we’ve had for the last ninety-five years—until 2010. Today, not content with huge tax breaks on their income; not content with massive corporate tax loopholes; not content with trade laws enabling them to outsource the jobs of millions of American workers to low-wage countries and not content with tax havens around the world, the ruling elite and their lobbyists are working feverishly to either eliminate the estate tax or substantially lower it. If they are successful at wiping out the estate tax, as they came close to doing in 2006 with every Republican but two voting to do, it would increase the national debt by over $1 trillion during a ten-year period. At a time when we already have a $13 trillion debt, enormous unmet needs and the highest level of wealth inequality in the industrialized world, it is simply obscene to provide more tax breaks to multi-millionaires and billionaires. and: According to the Congressional Budget Office, households that made between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007. regarding taxes, reindog, i hope you are right, but i don't think so. (you see, i disagree w/you regarding who will be most negatively impacted.) letting the bush tax cuts expire would be awesome, for one thing. the median tax cut was $470. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html and, regarding the bush tax cuts: The Very Well-Off: Big Winners on Two Fronts The very well-off have been big winners on two fronts. They secured enormous gains in income in the 1980s and 1990s. They now are receiving extremely large tax cuts as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut measures. The Congressional Budget Office provides the most comprehensive data available on recent changes in incomes and taxes for different income groups; these CBO data cover years from 1979 until 2001. Just-released CBO data show: * The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population more than doubled over this period, rising from $294,300 in 1979 to $703,100 in 2001, an increase of $408,800. (CBO adjusted these figures for inflation and expressed them in 2001 dollars.) This represents an increase of 139 percent. * By contrast, the average after-tax income of the households that make up the middle fifth of the U.S. population rose $6,300, or 17 percent, during this period. And the average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of households rose $1,100, or only eight percent. * In combination with data on before-tax income from a study issued by the National Bureau of Economic Research, these CBO data indicate that before-tax income was more concentrated at the top of the income scale in 2001 than at any time in the previous 65 years (i.e., back to 1936), except for the years from 1997-2000. The benefits that the tax cuts provide to different groups vary dramatically. New data from the TaxPolicyCenter show the effects in 2004 of the tax cuts that have already been enacted, including the corporate and estate tax cuts, as well as the individual income tax cuts. The TaxPolicyCenter data show that the combined effect of the tax cuts in 2004 is as follows: * The one-fifth of households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive an average tax cut of $647. * The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000 — or 54 times as much as that received on average by those in the middle of the income spectrum. * Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. The tax cuts for millionaires will cause their after-tax income to jump by 6.4 percent, nearly three times the percentage increase received by the middle fifth. The overall shares of the tax cuts that are going to different households also are illuminating. The TaxPolicyCenter data show that: * In 2004, the middle 20 percent of households will receive 8.9 percent of the tax cuts. * By contrast, millionaires — totaling just 0.2 percent of U.S. households — will receive 15.3 percent of the tax cuts.[3] In other words, the small handful of millionaires will receive total tax cuts far larger than those received by the entire middle 20 percent of households. * The tax cuts will confer more than $30 billion on the nation’s 257,000 millionaires in 2004 alone. from: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811 doug s. (Message edited by doug_s on August 20, 2010) | ||
| Sifo |
Reindog, Doug_s floated that 1% owning 85% of all stocks long ago and it just sounded way off. I never got as far as trying to verify it. I quickly found the 1) Doug's source is BS, taking statistics and twisting it to claim things not backed by the statistics. Basically his sources are dishonest. 2) Doug will cling to these false ideas even when it is clearly demonstrated that they are wrong. Basically Doug is dishonest. This is why I've stopped responding to Doug. There's just no point to it. The data behind Doug's sources show that not only have the rich gotten richer, but also the poor have gotten richer, using inflation adjusted numbers. He seems to think this is going to lead to violent revolt. I believe the violent revolt will come from other reasons, not because all classes have experience positive growth. So I would tend to believe that more like 10% own 85% of all stocks. There's something seriously wrong in the 1% claim given the number of people who are currently invested through 401K plans, IRAs, and just mutual fund investing. http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03 interviewswolff.html
One argument I've never understood is the idea that income inequality is such a bad thing. I forget if it was NewsWeek or Time that just had a big article on ranking countries. They had a nice interactive web page where you could see the various break downs. Now when a country like Ethiopia gets ranked higher than the US on the wage question because of a wider income inequality, I really have to start questioning the reasonableness of that metric. Somehow this gets used all the time to demonstrate just how bad things are in the US. Somehow our poor are among the most obese poor in the world though. They have ample resources to buy food, and expend very little energy to acquire those resources. It's no wonder we have some of the worlds fattest laziest poor the world has ever seen. | ||
| Doug_s |
sifo, save your insults. just because you are ignorant, does not make me dishonest. my source is bs? there are reams and reams of info supporting everything i have posted. because you don't like it doesn't make it bs, or me dishonest. ok, so you found data that says the richest 10% own 90% of everything. maybe my stats are right, maybe your stats are right, maybe the actual figure is somewhere in between. do you really think this inwalidates the point i have been making? that the wery rich in this country are the ones that own the rest of us, and they're the ones running the show? including the elections, regardless of whether you choose democrat or republican? at eweryone else's expense?  look, you do not have to agree w/me, or my worldwiew, but your outright attempts to slander me is really not acceptable. my sources are not bs, and i am not dishonest. but, i don't think it too slanderous to state you are either an idiot, or simply feel more comfortable resorting to slinging mud when you cannot refute what you find distasteful. i am still waiting to hear how you believe a 3 month old fetus in the womb is a human being that can be murdered. and i am still waiting to hear how it's not conservative judicial activism when the supreme court ruled corporations have free speech rights reserved for humans under the constitution. but, i am not holding my breath...  doug s. | ||
| Sifo |
I suppose some people think it's actually possible for the poor to own the bulk of the wealth. | ||
| J2blue |
And I clicked on this thread thinking there was some new news about HD leaving Milwaukee. Shame on me. | ||
| Slaughter |
If god wants Harley to stay in Milwaukee, god will make it so. Who dares question god's wishes? | ||
| Reindog |
To add perspective, we also have the world's smartest and hardest working people. One knows in their gut that the American poor are relatively well off as long as they are not willing to do the jobs that illegal immigrants currently do. This will all change soon. CycloneDon: I think HD left this thread when we Bozos boarded this bus. | ||
| Sifo |
This is a Buell website. If you want to discuss HD there are many websites where you can go to do that. I suggest you find one of those. Please stay on topic.  | ||
| Reindog |
If god wants Erik Buell to play at Newcomb's Ranch this Sunday, god will make it so. | ||
| Sifo |
So the whole 1% owning 83% of stocks seems to stem from this source... http://financemymoney.com/who-controls-wealth-in-a merica-top-1-percent-own-83-percent-of-stocks-hous ing-debt-eating-personal-income/
So the "data" we are looking at (really nothing more than a very small selection of data that is 10 years out of date) is titled "Households Assets and Liabilities by Wealth Class in the U.S.". I'm not sure how you get from "Households Assets and Liabilities" to calling that owner ship of Stocks. This is clearly not an honest representation of the data being looked at. Assets and Liabilities is not the same as Stock ownership at all. I have to call total dishonest BS on this one. | ||
| Odie |
I just keep buying guns, ammo, and food.......  Seriously, I do think things are going to get way worse before they get better, if ever. A lot of what you guys have written and referenced has been interesting. It consumed most of my reading today when I wasn't out flying. I honestly believe that we are where we are at as a country/society because of our greedy nature. The corporate desire to make the all mighty dollar at whatever the cost has ruined this place. The govt hasn't helped with some of the tax laws, etc. that help force some industries overseas. Alot of times I hanker for simpler times like post WWII in the 50's. I know things weren't perfect then but at least seemed easier and more enjoyable. We have two wars going on right now and most folks aren't even aware of it. If we, as a country, had the determination that folks did back during WWII when it came to conserving and doing your part for the boys over there then I feel we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. At least not quite as badly. I feel we, as Americans, have gotten too greedy and materialistic and that in turn drives the corporations to do whatever it takes to satiate us. I wish everyone could live comfortably and have nice things. Unfortunately, there are lazy people out there. A LOT of them. I have no desire to support them. I have worked hard for what I have and don't feel that ANYONE is entitled to it but whom I choose to share it with. I chose my path and you chose yours. Deal with it. Opportunity abounds in this country. Folks need to get off their 4th points of contact and DO SOMETHING. Gotta go count ammo........ | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Doug, far be it from me to conduct ad hominem attacks, but I do find it difficult to place much stock in an Op Ed written by Bernie Sanders. Other details from the legitimate source you posted: Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame. The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year. The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. The problem is spending not the tax rate. | ||
| Prior |
I do enjoy the tangents that some of the threads on Badweb take, and do enjoy reading different sides that people take... If you are going to post an 8 paragraph quote on upcoming tax laws, or 30 lines of data on historical income trends, can you at least post the sources of such information? Makes all of these tangent threads, and the information contained within, much easier to comprehend if you know the source and their methodology of obtaining data rather than doing an Google search to figure out where some obscure piece of 'data' came from... That said, Looking forward to what HD may announce about their tenure in Milwaukee, and what is down the road for the MoCo. (Message edited by awprior on August 20, 2010) | ||
| Doug_s |
fatty, i did preface that post w/the fact that i was only citing those articles for their stats, not for their policy positions. tho i do confess an attraction to much of what bernie saunders says. (i also find it interesting that his op-ed piece was written on a weteran's website.) and, i am in agreement w/you, as i said before, that govt spending is out of control. but, i have heard no credible economist of any political stripe suggest any meaningful alternative to what's being done now, to stem the total free-fall that our economy experienced in the fall of 2008. i have heard a lot of lame attacks against the deficit spending from republican politicians, tho, with no real plan other than to, once again, "cut taxes". what's missing from the republican politician's attacks is what are major causes of our present deficit, (besides the bush tax cuts, which even the article you cite says are responsible for a surprising 25% of today's deficits). these causes are the wars, the substantial decrease in revenue due to the economic collapse, and the stimulus/bailouts, which were an attempt to stop the bleeding, restore confidence, and prewent a major collapse that would make the 1930's look like good times. almost all ecoonomists agree this needed to be done, regardless of political stripe. and no one, even "tax and spend democrats", think the deficit spending should continue at present rates. (i guess there are some neocons & those in the military/ndustrial establishment that would like never-ending war, tho...) but, cut taxes? with 25% of the present budget deficit attributed to the bush tax cuts? with wars? with decreased federal revenues? w/stimulus/bailout packages that were a necessary evil to prewent a complete financial collapse? even the conserwative wall street journal has said america is dangerously close to becoming an oligarchy, in an article i cited earlier. i have never heard any credible arguments in defense of trickle-down supply side economics as a wiable long-term policy for economic stability, and i have read a lot about it since reaganomics. all it would do is further increase the disparity of the wealth between the really rich and everyone else, further squeezing the middle class. (ya, i have read a lot that supports it, but i don't find it credible. too much sensible ewidence to the contrary, imo.) doug s. | ||
| Doug_s |
h-d does not give a rat's a** about wisconsin, or american workers, imo. it will go to whoever is willing to do the work for indian/chinese wages. like it has already done with its lifestyle accessories, almost all of which are made offshore. doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It's simple. Cut spending. Period. Federal tax rates, whatever they are, become nearly irrelevant when the Federal Government is limited to the role the framers intended. We are repeating the failures of the Great Depression on steroids. We will see a double dip recession in 2011. The strategy of confiscation of wealth has been tried and it has failed EVERY time it's been tried. Those at the bottom receiving the benefits will never become self sufficient those who pay for those benefit will eventually cease the behaviors that create the taxable revenues. Socialism collapses under it's own weight. | ||
| Doug_s |
the amount of welfare being received by those at the bottom pale in comparison to corporate welfare. america is the only industrialized nation on the planet without a wiable healthcare & pension system that looks after the bare necessities of all its people. this isn't about giving a free ride to those too lazy to work. (most folks want to work, doncha know?) this isn't about confiscation of wealth. it's about simple human decency... i know - it's utopian and runs counter to the greed so prevalent in human nature, that so many seem to think is ok, and actually want to encourage... doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
america is the only industrialized nation on the planet without a wiable healthcare & pension system that looks after the bare necessities of all its people. Psssst. We have this thing called Social Security and this thing called Medicare and this thing called Medicaid. this isn't about giving a free ride to those too lazy to work. (most folks want to work, doncha know?) this isn't about confiscation of wealth. it's about simple human decency... i know - it's utopian and runs counter to the greed so prevalent in human nature, that so many seem to think is ok, and actually want to encourage... If this is what the people want, use the system created by the framers to amend the Constitution to grant the Federal Government the power to provide such things. We are so far off track that the Constitution is at risk of becoming completely invalid. |
