The "TRUTH" about "Wealth Distribution".

[Two Thumbs]

Life is not fair. True

Is that a good reason for making life less fair than it already is? How is anyone making it less fair?

Repubs and Dems are united in telling us our current economic problems stem from a government that's too large. Only the GOP says that, the dems clearly want to make it bigger and more expensve to run.

Therefore the only fair solution is to shrink government. It's a duty. It's grown beyond what was ever intended.

Others believe our economy suffers from the most unfair concentration of wealth and income at the top of the economic food chain since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for the majority of workers. childish whiners think that, yes.

"The result: Americans no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going at full capacity. simply not true.

"Since the debt bubble burst, most Americans have had to reduce their spending; they need to repay their debts, can’t borrow as before, and must save for retirement." These are something everyone should do anyway. The other 2 are libs taking advantage of a problem they created. A problem they had a cure for, before it was a problem. Take from the rich that earned it and give it to the poor that didn't, so the poor vote for them.

Is fairness increased by shifting even more of the tax burden onto the lower 80% of earners? Is it far to tax anyone more than me? What has anyone done to not pay taxes?

The Big Lie

As one of the working poor I resent the idea that you, the left and gubmint think I need thier help to get by. Especially since it was thier interferance that helped put me here.

A recent example of how life is being made less fair for about 98% of Americans is the bipartisan willingness to renew the Bush tax cuts. wrong, the poor pay less, far less to the point I made money doing my taxes. Although the extension is for "just" two more years, how likely is it Republicans or Democrats will vote to "raise" taxes during the 2012 presidential race?

The richest 2% of Americans, thanks to the $13trillion Wall Street bailout and a bipartisan tax policy that has favored debt over equity investing for the last three decades, now receive an estimated 75% of all returns to wealth, nearly double what it received one generation ago. The rich and poor get welfare, the rich have to pay it back, eventually

The political maxim at work here is big fish eat little fish: duh

"There’s not enough tax money to continue swelling the fortunes of the super-rich pretending to save enough to pay the pensions and related social support that North American and European employees have been promised. So the unions are getting an unfair cut? How is having to keep your promise unfair?

"Something must give – and the rich have shown themselves sufficiently foresighted to seize the initiative.

"For a preview of what’s in line for the United States, watch neoliberal Europe’s fight against the middle and working class in Greece, Ireland and Latvia; or better yet, Pinochet’s Chile, whose privatized Social Security accounts were quickly wiped out in the late 1970s by the kleptocracy advised by the Chicago Boys, to whose monetarist double-think Obama’s appointee Ben Bernanke has just re-pledged his loyalty." sounds like someone got all Cloward/Piven on them in the name of fake fairness.

In my mind fairness depends on increasing the taxes of those who crashed the US economy NOT on cutting the Social Security and Medicare benefits of those who are victims of the crash. There's no need to do either, we can all pay the same tax and keep SS.

Obama's Greatest Betrayal

I don't buy into the class warfare that you have.

Life is not fair, and it is often cruel.... My Dad

 

[daveman]

What makes you think it was a minority of conservatives who regularly used the words ****** or gook?

My in-laws use the n-word regularly.

They're Democrats.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm still looking for a picture of Brendan Fraser and the mail carrier from the movie "Blast from the Past" going "Oh my stars! A Negro!"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Life is not fair. True

Is that a good reason for making life less fair than it already is? How is anyone making it less fair?

Repubs and Dems are united in telling us our current economic problems stem from a government that's too large. Only the GOP says that, the dems clearly want to make it bigger and more expensve to run.

Therefore the only fair solution is to shrink government. It's a duty. It's grown beyond what was ever intended.

Others believe our economy suffers from the most unfair concentration of wealth and income at the top of the economic food chain since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for the majority of workers. childish whiners think that, yes.

"The result: Americans no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going at full capacity. simply not true.

"Since the debt bubble burst, most Americans have had to reduce their spending; they need to repay their debts, can’t borrow as before, and must save for retirement." These are something everyone should do anyway. The other 2 are libs taking advantage of a problem they created. A problem they had a cure for, before it was a problem. Take from the rich that earned it and give it to the poor that didn't, so the poor vote for them.

Is fairness increased by shifting even more of the tax burden onto the lower 80% of earners? Is it far to tax anyone more than me? What has anyone done to not pay taxes?

The Big Lie

As one of the working poor I resent the idea that you, the left and gubmint think I need thier help to get by. Especially since it was thier interferance that helped put me here.

A recent example of how life is being made less fair for about 98% of Americans is the bipartisan willingness to renew the Bush tax cuts. Although the extension is for "just" two more years, how likely is it Republicans or Democrats will vote to "raise" taxes during the 2012 presidential race?

The richest 2% of Americans, thanks to the $13trillion Wall Street bailout and a bipartisan tax policy that has favored debt over equity investing for the last three decades, now receive an estimated 75% of all returns to wealth, nearly double what it received one generation ago.

The political maxim at work here is big fish eat little fish:

"There’s not enough tax money to continue swelling the fortunes of the super-rich pretending to save enough to pay the pensions and related social support that North American and European employees have been promised.

"Something must give – and the rich have shown themselves sufficiently foresighted to seize the initiative.

"For a preview of what’s in line for the United States, watch neoliberal Europe’s fight against the middle and working class in Greece, Ireland and Latvia; or better yet, Pinochet’s Chile, whose privatized Social Security accounts were quickly wiped out in the late 1970s by the kleptocracy advised by the Chicago Boys, to whose monetarist double-think Obama’s appointee Ben Bernanke has just re-pledged his loyalty."

In my mind fairness depends on increasing the taxes of those who crashed the US economy NOT on cutting the Social Security and Medicare benefits of those who are victims of the crash.

Obama's Greatest Betrayal

Not raising taxes on everyone who pays taxes is bad for the people who pay less in taxes? Do you ever wonder why people look at you like you are crazy, or do you only hang out with others who share your delusions?

 

[Bern80]

Life is not fair.

Is that a good reason for making life less fair than it already is?

Repubs and Dems are united in telling us our current economic problems stem from a government that's too large.

Therefore the only fair solution is to shrink government.

Others believe our economy suffers from the most unfair concentration of wealth and income at the top of the economic food chain since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for the majority of workers.

Probably some of both. But again WHY is so important. And I continue to have the belief that the place for people to start looking is at their own actions first. Is one possibility perhaps that the work force isn't adapting quickly to changing demands? That's one possiblity as to why incomes aren't keeping up with cost of living isn't it? Maybe because as a collective we are expecting what worked before to yield the same results now. That the same skill sets that yielded a decent standard of living before will do the same now. This is where I think college does a bit of disservice to new members of the labor force. There is really no effort or guidance given that tells students 'here are the fields the skills in demand, plan your education accordingly.

Is fairness increased by shifting even more of the tax burden onto the lower 80% of earners?

Sure it's fair. Not everything that is fair is all roses though. You've heard of share the misery. Same concept. An honest objective look at tax structure in this country has to be looked at and some realization of some brutal truths. The tax structure in this country is not fair by any definitin of the term. The wealthy carry the bulk of the tax burden, pure and simple. It's math, not politics. Maybe that's the way it has to be if we conciously or otherwise decide this is the size of government we want maintained. The poor and middle class mathematically could NEVER contribute a fair share to maintain that. The math just doesn't work out. But let's not continue this delusion that the structure is fair or that the poor and middle class are baring on unfair tax burden.

but our "productivity" of American workers has gone through the roof the past few decades....we ARE producing more....we are the most productive workers in the world....

KNOWING THIS, I think it is a mistake to blame the workers in this country.

Producing more does not automatically equate to earning more money. Again I'm not blaming workers. You just need to wrap your head around the concept of goal setting. Little hypothetical scenario. Some guy sets the goal of becoming financially independent. This person works on an assembly line at GM. He does his job better and is now able to contribute to building 50 more cars this year than last year. Nice for GM assuming there's the demand for them, but is that really going to get significantly closer to financial independence?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you agree or disagree with the following?

"We are in a peculiar situation where the main problem for the economy is a lack of demand. More demand will mean more growth and more jobs.

"Government must supply demand because there is no other entity that can step forward to do it—unless someone gets very good at counterfeiting hundred dollar bills."

Dean Baker

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oddball, give me some substance, prove your point.

Oddude cannot. He is an ideologue with a thesaurus, which means he has one more book than his cohorts (the infamous echo chamber).
btw, keep posting MitchMan, it's wonderful to read thoughtful and substantive posts amongst the tangle of idiotgrams. You know you've hit the bulls eye when the echo chamber responds in mass with pejoratives and ad hominem attacks. Not one of the RW Fringe who posted in response to your essays has offered a counterpoint or a response worthy of comment. The one surprise is oddude hasn't yet called you a Fabian Socialist.

 

[Bern80]

"We are in a peculiar situation where the main problem for the economy is a lack of demand. More demand will mean more growth and more jobs.

I would agree with that. People are hoarding right now. People and business because the future is uncertain.

"Government must supply demand because there is no other entity that can step forward to do it—unless someone gets very good at counterfeiting hundred dollar bills."

Dean Baker

Don't agree with this though. How can the government make people want things? I guess they think they can make people buy things (Healthcare bill), but that's not really demand.

 

[Bern80]

Oddball, give me some substance, prove your point.

Oddude cannot. He is an ideologue with a thesaurus, which means he has one more book than his cohorts (the infamous echo chamber).
btw, keep posting MitchMan, it's wonderful to read thoughtful and substantive posts amongst the tangle of idiotgrams. You know you've hit the bulls eye when the echo chamber responds in mass with pejoratives and ad hominem attacks. Not one of the RW Fringe who posted in response to your essays has offered a counterpoint or a response worthy of comment. The one surprise is oddude hasn't yet called you a Fabian Socialist.

That is amazingly hollow coming from the likes of you. In your world any argument that disagrees with your OPINION is an argument not worth commenting on. How convenient an excuse is that?

 

[MitchMan]

The problem with wealth disparity is the disparity itself.

My facts and stats: Fed Rsrv Bd, Survey of Consumer Finances and the IRS stats and commonly summarized and presented in a numerous variety of publications. They are easy to find.


Bern80, we are going round and round here. It’s deteriorating into “he said, she said, then he said”. We have both stated our positions and I think that readers understand my position and they understand your position. I understand your position. Quite frankly, I have become a little bored with our exchange.

Gerogephillip, you rock!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Probably some of both. But again WHY is so important. And I continue to have the belief that the place for people to start looking is at their own actions first. Is one possibility perhaps that the work force isn't adapting quickly to changing demands? That's one possiblity as to why incomes aren't keeping up with cost of living isn't it? Maybe because as a collective we are expecting what worked before to yield the same results now. That the same skill sets that yielded a decent standard of living before will do the same now. This is where I think college does a bit of disservice to new members of the labor force. There is really no effort or guidance given that tells students 'here are the fields the skills in demand, plan your education accordingly.




Sure it's fair. Not everything that is fair is all roses though. You've heard of share the misery. Same concept. An honest objective look at tax structure in this country has to be looked at and some realization of some brutal truths. The tax structure in this country is not fair by any definitin of the term. The wealthy carry the bulk of the tax burden, pure and simple. It's math, not politics. Maybe that's the way it has to be if we conciously or otherwise decide this is the size of government we want maintained. The poor and middle class mathematically could NEVER contribute a fair share to maintain that. The math just doesn't work out. But let's not continue this delusion that the structure is fair or that the poor and middle class are baring on unfair tax burden.

but our "productivity" of American workers has gone through the roof the past few decades....we ARE producing more....we are the most productive workers in the world....

KNOWING THIS, I think it is a mistake to blame the workers in this country.

Producing more does not automatically equate to earning more money. Again I'm not blaming workers. You just need to wrap your head around the concept of goal setting. Little hypothetical scenario. Some guy sets the goal of becoming financially independent. This person works on an assembly line at GM. He does his job better and is now able to contribute to building 50 more cars this year than last year. Nice for GM assuming there's the demand for them, but is that really going to get significantly closer to financial independence?

It might if he does other things at home to help him achieve that goal. If he just expects it to happen magically he might be disappointed though.

 

[Bern80]

The problem with wealth disparity is the disparity itself.

My facts and stats: Fed Rsrv Bd, Survey of Consumer Finances and the IRS stats and commonly summarized and presented in a numerous variety of publications. They are easy to find.


Bern80, we are going round and round here. It’s deteriorating into “he said, she said, then he said”. We have both stated our positions and I think that readers understand my position and they understand your position. I understand your position. Quite frankly, I have become a little bored with our exchange.

Gerogephillip, you rock!

I think so too I think we're talking about two different things. You're still arguing as if there's actually a debate about whether a disparity exists at all. I am arguing that why the disparity exists is the key to fixing it.

 

[georgephillip]

"We are in a peculiar situation where the main problem for the economy is a lack of demand. More demand will mean more growth and more jobs.

I would agree with that. People are hoarding right now. People and business because the future is uncertain.

"Government must supply demand because there is no other entity that can step forward to do it—unless someone gets very good at counterfeiting hundred dollar bills."

Dean Baker

Don't agree with this though. How can the government make people want things? I guess they think they can make people buy things (Healthcare bill), but that's not really demand.

Business may be hoarding due to future uncertainties; however, people are hoarding because of present unemployment levels.

More than 25 million people are unemployed, underemployed or have given up looking for work.

Tens of millions are underwater on their mortgages, millions face imminent loss of their home, and there's little prospect of improvement any time soon.

Government created demand comes from supplying jobs that unemployed and underemployed Americans need to meet their personal economic demands.

Since the private sector prefers to sit on its cash or invest in India and China, government supplied demand would take the form of a 21st Century WPA:

"The Works Progress Administration (renamed during 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions to carry out public works projects, including the construction of public buildings and roads, and operated large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.

"It fed children and redistributed food, clothing, and housing.

"Almost every community in the United States had a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, which especially benefited rural and Western populations.

"Expenditures from 1936 to 1939 totaled nearly $7 billion.[1] By 1943, the total amount spent was over $11 billion."

 

[Barb]

"We are in a peculiar situation where the main problem for the economy is a lack of demand. More demand will mean more growth and more jobs.

I would agree with that. People are hoarding right now. People and business because the future is uncertain.

"Government must supply demand because there is no other entity that can step forward to do it—unless someone gets very good at counterfeiting hundred dollar bills."

Dean Baker

Don't agree with this though. How can the government make people want things? I guess they think they can make people buy things (Healthcare bill), but that's not really demand.

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

 

[Barb]

"We are in a peculiar situation where the main problem for the economy is a lack of demand. More demand will mean more growth and more jobs.

I would agree with that. People are hoarding right now. People and business because the future is uncertain.

"Government must supply demand because there is no other entity that can step forward to do it—unless someone gets very good at counterfeiting hundred dollar bills."

Dean Baker

Don't agree with this though. How can the government make people want things? I guess they think they can make people buy things (Healthcare bill), but that's not really demand.

Business may be hoarding due to future uncertainties; however, people are hoarding because of present unemployment levels.

More than 25 million people are unemployed, underemployed or have given up looking for work.

Tens of millions are underwater on their mortgages, millions face imminent loss of their home, and there's little prospect of improvement any time soon.

Government created demand comes from supplying jobs that unemployed and underemployed Americans need to meet their personal economic demands.

Since the private sector prefers to sit on its cash or invest in India and China, government supplied demand would take the form of a 21st Century WPA:

"The Works Progress Administration (renamed during 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions to carry out public works projects, including the construction of public buildings and roads, and operated large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.

"It fed children and redistributed food, clothing, and housing.

"Almost every community in the United States had a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, which especially benefited rural and Western populations.

"Expenditures from 1936 to 1939 totaled nearly $7 billion.[1] By 1943, the total amount spent was over $11 billion."

And all of that produced the middle class that increased the demand for manufactured goods, and that demand helped countless industries, as well as fueled research and development that opened new industries.

You cannot kill your consumer base and stay in business, no matter HOW much $$ you save in overhead. With no one who can afford to buy your product or services, you're pretty much ass-out. We saw this with the housing / debt collapse. What frosted my ass is that the very people who took those chances and lost got bailed out by the very people, and their progeny, and they STILL haven't learned their lesson.

 

[georgephillip]

Apparently you can kill off most of your consumers in one country as long as India, and China continue to grow their middle classes.

I'm not clear on why we donated $13trillion in bail-outs and guarantees to those who are sacrificing the US middle class for greener pastures in Asia?

 

[Bern80]

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

One thing should be fairly intuitively obvious. Making it more expensive for business to do business is unlikely to encourage private sector job growth. And the private sector is the only sector that can sustain labor growth. Shovel ready jobs may be an okay emergency stop gap, but government doesn't produce anything people demand. An economy can't function that way. You might as well have a government job where people spend the day moving a pile of rocks from point A to B if all your concerned with is putting money in their pocket. And lest we forget the money to pay people to do these meaningless jobs has to come from somewhere, the taxpayers. Or at least the taxpayers that have money to be taken. I'm thinking an economy that essentially involves people involuntarily paying people to do meaningless work won't work out so great.

 

[Bern80]

Apparently you can kill off most of your consumers in one country as long as India, and China continue to grow their middle classes.

I'm not clear on why we donated $13trillion in bail-outs and guarantees to those who are sacrificing the US middle class for greener pastures in Asia?

Honest answer? Because that's what the consumers of the middle class decided they wanted. How do you improve your financial standing? Bring in more money or spend less of it. Lower business expenses means the price of consumables stays down.

Here's the thing people don't get about protectionism. It's a zero sum game. What good really is it to keep jobs if the cost of everything goes up as a result. I thought the whole idea was to put more money in people's pockets. You libs always think you can have things both ways.

 

[Oddball]

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

Where do you think the money comes from to do that, Santa Claus?

 

[georgephillip]

Apparently you can kill off most of your consumers in one country as long as India, and China continue to grow their middle classes.

I'm not clear on why we donated $13trillion in bail-outs and guarantees to those who are sacrificing the US middle class for greener pastures in Asia?

Honest answer? Because that's what the consumers of the middle class decided they wanted. How do you improve your financial standing? Bring in more money or spend less of it. Lower business expenses means the price of consumables stays down.

Here's the thing people don't get about protectionism. It's a zero sum game. What good really is it to keep jobs if the cost of everything goes up as a result. I thought the whole idea was to put more money in people's pockets. You libs always think you can have things both ways.

How many middle class consumers wanted their jobs shipped to China?

About the same number who are currently underwater on their mortgage?

How do you feel about bringing in more money by imposing a financial speculation tax on the economic class getting richer from rising corporate profits and bull shit foreclosures?

Why shouldn't capital gains be taxed at 35% instead of 15%?

Why is the cons first instinct to serve as useful idiots for rich parasites?