Family net worth retreats to early 1990's levels

[Annie]

Sometimes I wish the president had the dictatorial power over the economy that some seem to think he has.

That would be when the president in power agreed with you, right?

 

[occupied]

Sometimes I wish the president had the dictatorial power over the economy that some seem to think he has.

That would be when the president in power agreed with you, right?

Any president, my desire to make a good living far outweighs any partisan feelings I may have. Nothing gets presidents reelected like a booming economy, too bad Wall Street has found ways to make vast sums off of a busted economy too.

 

[Katzndogz]

Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010

And it's way worse than all of that; because that does not account for inflation. That means that families are dipping into their savings AND having their remaining savings devalued so that Obama can have his party and buy votes for his party to continue. This article should convince even the most hardcore leftists that he needs to be booted. And any "independent" voting for him is not an f'ing independent. You vote for this clown and you may as well calll it official that you are are brain dead idiot.

And after I said that, two brain dead idiots weighed in.

I remember when the public indoctrination system taught me that you don't see the economic effects of a president for 20 years.

That's nonsense. The president is making crucial policies that have immediate effects on the economy. And in Obama's case, those decisions have been devastating.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.

No.

Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.

But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.

 

[thanatos144]

Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.

No.

Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.

But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.

When has that ever happened?

 

[occupied]

Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.

It's being redistributed upward, not exactly the dream of any fictional socialist president.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.

No.

Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.

But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.

When has that ever happened?

A long time ago, in the 1990s.

Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.

 

[thanatos144]

No.

Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.

But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.

When has that ever happened?

A long time ago, in the 1990s.

Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.

LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.

 

[DontBeStupid]

When has that ever happened?

A long time ago, in the 1990s.

Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.

LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.

Do you mean the 90s or the 50s? I mean, either way you're wrong, but I just want to know which decade to focus on when educating you.

 

[thanatos144]

A long time ago, in the 1990s.

Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.

LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.

Do you mean the 90s or the 50s? I mean, either way you're wrong, but I just want to know which decade to focus on when educating you.

You would do better to educate yourself cause right now I am shocked you can dress yourself.

 

[DontBeStupid]

LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.

Do you mean the 90s or the 50s? I mean, either way you're wrong, but I just want to know which decade to focus on when educating you.

You would do better to educate yourself cause right now I am shocked you can dress yourself.

Look at the top tax rates for both decades. You can include the 60s too. The top rates were either high, or had recently been increased substantially. In all three decades, there was a clear, dramatic increase in the average salary of the American worker.

Welfare has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[auditor0007]

I think I'll blame the Republicans in Congress for their obstructionism and failure to compromise.

I do blame the Republicans for trying to stop any positive legislation that may have helped, but the bottom line is that we are in a very bad cycle, and due to the cause, it is unlikely that anything would have made a difference. Bush's economy, that Republicans like to suggest was a good economy, was completely based on a housing bubble. Had that housing bubble not existed, we would have been in a very long recession during Bush's administration.

Unfortunately, not only did the housing bubble burst, it happened at a time when the baby boomers were changing their spending habits in a very big way. As they started retiring or began getting closer to retirement, they started to downsize. They began moving into smaller homes, and they no longer had the need for big cars and all the extra spending that comes with raising kids. Now their goals had changed to concentrating on saving for retirement. To make matters worse, with the collapse of housing prices and the ensuing stock market crash, boomers were now in a precarious situation which led to a further reduction in spending.

These facts cannot be ignored. We lived on the edge for years, creating an economy that was based on many bubbles including the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble. Our economy was not that strong, and in the end it all comes down to one factor, and that is because we stopped manufacturing many of our own goods. Yes, we still do manufacture many things, but we have let go of a very strong base that we need. Because of our greed, and that includes everyone who shops at Walmart and the like, we have reduced our own wages for the long run, and it has led to a reduction in our standard of living.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Do you mean the 90s or the 50s? I mean, either way you're wrong, but I just want to know which decade to focus on when educating you.

You would do better to educate yourself cause right now I am shocked you can dress yourself.

Look at the top tax rates for both decades. You can include the 60s too. The top rates were either high, or had recently been increased substantially. In all three decades, there was a clear, dramatic increase in the average salary of the American worker.

Welfare has nothing to do with this discussion.

Here:

 

[thanatos144]

You would do better to educate yourself cause right now I am shocked you can dress yourself.

Look at the top tax rates for both decades. You can include the 60s too. The top rates were either high, or had recently been increased substantially. In all three decades, there was a clear, dramatic increase in the average salary of the American worker.

Welfare has nothing to do with this discussion.

Here:

No you dummy spending does.

 

[auditor0007]

When has that ever happened?

A long time ago, in the 1990s.

Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.

LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.

The last time the budget was balanced or close was in the late 90's heading into 2000 and 2001. This was done by making some spending cuts and increasing taxes and we got things done because Republicans and Democrats compromised to actually get things done. We had a Democrat in the White House if you remember. Of course, today, Republicans think we can balance the budget by giving everyone even more tax cuts, even though we now have the lowest tax rates in over 60 years. So obviously, you need to do some research so you can better understand the facts.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Look at the top tax rates for both decades. You can include the 60s too. The top rates were either high, or had recently been increased substantially. In all three decades, there was a clear, dramatic increase in the average salary of the American worker.

Welfare has nothing to do with this discussion.

Here:

No you dummy spending does.

You are 100% wrong.

 

[asterism]

Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.

No.

Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.

But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.

wow!

Show me how redistributing wealth can cause all wealth to go up.

 

[hjmick]

No blaming Bush here.....This is all on Obama's watch..
Family Net Worth Drops to Level of Early

You didn't really think that Bush wouldn't be blamed, did you?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.

No.

Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.

But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.

wow!

Show me how redistributing wealth can cause all wealth to go up.

Simple.

Person A increases his wealth $1B a year. If we tax him, and slow down his growth to only $500M a year, we use the $500M in revenue to provide tax credits to families with kids, thus freeing up money for them to increase their wealth.

All wealth goes up.