The US Has The Richest "Poor" In The World

[90K]

No, I'm talking about sewage sludge stabilization. I used to make a pasteurized product with about 30% solids content ans trucked to local markets to be spread like manure, Milwakee's is dried to nearly 100% solids and pellatized, suitable for regional, even national distribution. Liquid distribution is much more difficult, unless you have a dry climate and need the water to irrigate, and you simply can't haul it too far or you'll break the bank.

Yes that is correct on the slug factor. The issue with letting the treated water go into bodies of water is the nitrogen it kills plants and small life forms that make up the eco balance of life in the water.

 

[Darwins Friend]

The issue with letting the treated water go into bodies of water is the nitrogen it kills plants and small life forms that make up the eco balance of life in the water.

BINGO!

And you didn't even need a supposed

degree in civil engineering (cum laude, sorry for the penis pun again) and a graduate education in environmental engineering

to understand that!

 

[glockmail]

Yes that is correct on the slug factor. The issue with letting the treated water go into bodies of water is the nitrogen it kills plants and small life forms that make up the eco balance of life in the water.

The nitrogen causes algae to grow huge, which then die and take up oxegen as they degrade. Then all the fish die due to low disolved O2. If the fish die the people have nothing to eat so if they don't clean up their act there will be less people to feed and poop.

 

[glockmail]

BINGO!

And you didn't even need a supposed to understand that!

Well, duh! As I just explained, if you're an idiot you will not only run short of water, but also fish and just about everything else. Perhaps that is why there are shortages of resources in your world but plenty in mine?

 

[bush lover]

You people simply don't get it. We have the dollar. The Hindus have the rupee. Which is the world currency? We can BORROW AS MUCH AS WE WANT FOREVER because we have the dollar. No matter how many jobs go to India or China, it is totally irrelevant. We have the dollar. We print more and spend them. It's very simple. So that is why our President Bush is so successful. He understands this simple concept. Our government can borrow as much as we need from China or India and our President can give us more tax cuts. We just have to pay 4% interest. That's a stinking 4 cents on the dollar. And we can spend 96 cents. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[red states rule]

Pres. Bush will give a major economic speech in New York today touting his plan for a balanced budget at prevailing low tax rates, in order to extend the economic boom that began in 2003. He is also pushing hard for free trade as he did yesterday in Peoria, Illinois at Caterpillar, Inc.


Though Mr. Bush never gets any credit for the strong economy, the reality is that economic growth continues to surprise everyone. Today's real GDP report came in at 3.5 percent at an annual rate for the October-December period in 2006.


Consumer spending was very strong (+4.4 percent) for both durable and non-durable goods (+6.0 percent and +6.9 percent, respectively). Business capital investment spending was weak (-0.4 percent), perhaps due to energy prices, but we believe it will rebound


Price inflation inside the report was very low around 2 percent with one major price gauge actually declining for its biggest drop in 52 years. Treasury yields inched lower in response to the data, including the 10-year TIP yield, the economy’s natural rate proxy. However, the 10-year TIP spread, the market’s inflation expectations, was unchanged and remains within the range dating back to early-2004.


For the whole year, GDP advanced 3.4 percent following 3.2 percent last year, 3.4 percent in 2004, and 3.7 percent in 2003.


The highly diverse and resilient American economy has not been derailed by a temporary housing slump, which occurred last year following many years of outsized gains. Excluding the drag from housing investment, real GDP growth in the 4th quarter was 4.8 percent and was 4.3 percent for the year.


The strong investor class stock market has been signaling high growth in the economy for quite some time and high growth is coexisting nicely with low inflation. Hopefully, the Ben Bernanke Fed is watching this carefully.


Both the late Milton Friedman and supply-side guru Art Laffer have taught us that inflation occurs because too much money chases too few goods. However, as the Fed has throttled back money supply growth, the continuing gain from more production of goods and services has actually reduced inflation (helped by falling oil prices). So more output chasing slower money growth is a prescription for contained inflation.


The so-called Phillips curve tradeoff between falling unemployment and rising prices has once again been disproven. Right now the Fed has no reason to tighten or ease its policy. Low tax-rates are promoting growth while monetary control is holding down inflation. Continued free trade will also promote economic growth.


Mr. Bush is on the right track as he follows classical supply-side economic principles. He deserves a better polling fate for this achievement. Be that as it may be, the Goldilocks economy, not too hot and not too cold, continues to defeat all the pessimists and nay-sayers out there.

Larry Kudlow

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E2MTBkMjU5YTBlZWI2ZmY3Y2IyNmYwMWQ1ZGMzZDk=

 

[eots]

Richest poor..... gee thats just great go USA as long as we can lay claim that then no reason to concern ourselves about anything

 

[red states rule]

Richest poor..... gee thats just great go USA as long as we can lay claim that then no reason to concern ourselves about anything

We are the envy of the world. I do not see millions trying to sneak into Europe

 

[eots]

We are the envy of the world. I do not see millions trying to sneak into Europe

175 Million people currently reside in a country other than where they were born, double the number since 1975.

½ a million illegal immigrants who enter Europe each year, one-fourth come via Spain




Some estimates suggest that there may be up to 500,000 illegal immigrants in Canada.[13] A further unsubstantiated claim is that most are refugee claimants whose refugee applications were rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.[14] If already in the country, Canada does not ask any type of immigration applicant to re-enter the country for any extension or approval of their status. This differs from the U.S. which insists on re-entry for most types of applications, and denies entry if an application is declined.

It stands to reason that there may be very few illegal immigrants who enter the country without first being admitted by the Canada Border Services Agency. The reason for believing this is that Canada is physically very difficult to get to, with the exception of crossing the Canada-United States border. And in this case, since the U.S. is itself a prime destination for illegal immigrants, not many illegal immigrants then attempt an unauthorized border.
crossing into Canada.


Australia continues to be the destination of choice for a growing number of illegal immigrants fleeing their home countries in the middle east and Asia. More than 3,700 people in the last year have arrived on Australia's vast coastline seeking a new life but instead they receive detention in camps for long periods.

The government's tough policy has done little to dissuade the boat people but has provoked an emotional debate within Australia about how to deal with this growing problem. The illegal people traffic often organized by criminal gangs shows no sign of abating and the Australian authorities took the unprecedented step of turning away a ship carrying refugees

 

[red states rule]

175 Million people currently reside in a country other than where they were born, double the number since 1975.

½ a million illegal immigrants who enter Europe each year, one-fourth come via Spain




Some estimates suggest that there may be up to 500,000 illegal immigrants in Canada.[13] A further unsubstantiated claim is that most are refugee claimants whose refugee applications were rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.[14] If already in the country, Canada does not ask any type of immigration applicant to re-enter the country for any extension or approval of their status. This differs from the U.S. which insists on re-entry for most types of applications, and denies entry if an application is declined.

It stands to reason that there may be very few illegal immigrants who enter the country without first being admitted by the Canada Border Services Agency. The reason for believing this is that Canada is physically very difficult to get to, with the exception of crossing the Canada-United States border. And in this case, since the U.S. is itself a prime destination for illegal immigrants, not many illegal immigrants then attempt an unauthorized border.
crossing into Canada.


Australia continues to be the destination of choice for a growing number of illegal immigrants fleeing their home countries in the middle east and Asia. More than 3,700 people in the last year have arrived on Australia's vast coastline seeking a new life but instead they receive detention in camps for long periods.

The government's tough policy has done little to dissuade the boat people but has provoked an emotional debate within Australia about how to deal with this growing problem. The illegal people traffic often organized by criminal gangs shows no sign of abating and the Australian authorities took the unprecedented step of turning away a ship carrying refugees

With the welfare state in Europe I see why illegals are flocking there. I enjoyed watching the punks ion France rioting and burning down cities because they would no longer have a guaranteed job and guaranteed benefits

 

[nukeman]

You people simply don't get it. We have the dollar. The Hindus have the rupee. Which is the world currency? We can BORROW AS MUCH AS WE WANT FOREVER because we have the dollar. No matter how many jobs go to India or China, it is totally irrelevant. We have the dollar. We print more and spend them. It's very simple. So that is why our President Bush is so successful. He understands this simple concept. Our government can borrow as much as we need from China or India and our President can give us more tax cuts. We just have to pay 4% interest. That's a stinking 4 cents on the dollar. And we can spend 96 cents. Is that simple enough for you?

In case you haven't been paying attention most other countries are changing their currency to the Euro!!! Why!!, because its is worth more than the dollar. Just wait and see what the dollar will be worth in ten years. We will be in a huge recession if not depression because of our trade defecit.

When we borrow from other countries who use the Euro we are only getting 75 cents on the dollar so your spending of 96 cents goes right out the window. we only get to spend about 70 cents on the dollar of borrowed money from a number of these other countries. Do just a littel homework nexxt time...

 

[nukeman]

With the welfare state in Europe I see why illegals are flocking there. I enjoyed watching the punks ion France rioting and burning down cities because they would no longer have a guaranteed job and guaranteed benefits

A lot of European countries are happy to get the immigrants because they arent even at replacement births. They are going to need a lot of workers to pay all that tax for the welfare states. Unfortunately they are mostly getting uneducated workers the educated ones would rather go to more progressive countries where they can have more freedom and flexibility in their lives...

 

[supermarine]

obviously you haven't seen inner city oakland. You can blame "those lazy asses buyin them damn spinners" or you can blame the lack of opportunity, lack of support, and the gangs that plague the streets.

Its not only the rich people to blame, and its not only the "lazy people" to blame. It's a whole society problem.

And i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many people barely scraping by, with their public schools in shambles because of the "No Child Left Behind" act.

Now, before you go on calling me a "Bush hater" and a "Commie lib" please, consider this; i used to be the kind of person that called others "commies" and "Traitors" and retrospectively i think of myself as a moron.

 

[red states rule]

obviously you haven't seen inner city oakland. You can blame "those lazy asses buyin them damn spinners" or you can blame the lack of opportunity, lack of support, and the gangs that plague the streets.

Its not only the rich people to blame, and its not only the "lazy people" to blame. It's a whole society problem.

And i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many people barely scraping by, with their public schools in shambles because of the "No Child Left Behind" act.

Now, before you go on calling me a "Bush hater" and a "Commie lib" please, consider this; i used to be the kind of person that called others "commies" and "Traitors" and retrospectively i think of myself as a moron.

Hey, if people are so miserable they can find another job. Sitting on your ass and whining about how rotten things are will not change anything for the better

As far as education. the US government is spenind a RECORD amount on education. Then you add in what state and local governments are spending, please do not give me the garbage how education is being "under funded" or how the schools are a "shambles"

 

[gabosaurus]

We also have most of the richest rich people in the world. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening.
In every society, there are those who have and those who don't. If you go back to the basic teachings of Jesus (which many conservatively allegedly subscribe to), it is the duty of those who have to help those who don't.
Not in Bush America, however. We give tax breaks to the rich and send the poor over to die in Iraq.

 

[red states rule]

We also have most of the richest rich people in the world. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening.
In every society, there are those who have and those who don't. If you go back to the basic teachings of Jesus (which many conservatively allegedly subscribe to), it is the duty of those who have to help those who don't.
Not in Bush America, however. We give tax breaks to the rich and send the poor over to die in Iraq.

The fact is a very small majority of earners pay a huge majority of the taxes

With the top 1% pay 35% of all federal income taxes
and the top 10% pay 66% - how much more do you want them to pay?

BTW, the "poor" the bottom 50% pay only 4% of all federal taxes

 

[Vintij]

where did you get that figure?

Anyway, the government does like to classify poverty as under 30k a year, but we all know that it is possible to live that life. I think when the government says "poverty" they dont really mean poor they mean struggling, and yes there are MANY struggling familys in america and 780,000 homeless people walking the streets. Thats far to much for a nation with such large economic growth. What our problem is, we have a very low minimum wage....for the labor that those people do, they should earn at least 10 bucks an hour, not to mention it would encourage lower class spending and improve the economy overall, not to mention unemployment would go down because everyone would have a reason to flip burgers....On top of that, those workers would pay more taxes instead of the 4% claim.

The middle class is hit the hardest with taxes, and thats the problem with this country... The poor will never be middle class, the middle class will never be high class, and the high class will never be poor.

The only way (in my opinion) to take a step towards ending poverty in the long run is

College tuition should be lowerd, community college should be free, there should be public and private high schools where kids could go and get the general ed they need while focusing on specific skills like art or computers......etc. oh and better teachers, smaller classrooms, more music programs, up to date technology.

 

[red states rule]

where did you get that figure?

Anyway, the government does like to classify poverty as under 30k a year, but we all know that it is possible to live that life. I think when the government says "poverty" they dont really mean poor they mean struggling, and yes there are MANY struggling familys in america and 780,000 homeless people walking the streets. Thats far to much for a nation with such large economic growth. What our problem is, we have a very low minimum wage....for the labor that those people do, they should earn at least 10 bucks an hour, not to mention it would encourage lower class spending and improve the economy overall, not to mention unemployment would go down because everyone would have a reason to flip burgers....On top of that, those workers would pay more taxes instead of the 4% claim.

The middle class is hit the hardest with taxes, and thats the problem with this country... The poor will never be middle class, the middle class will never be high class, and the high class will never be poor.

The only way (in my opinion) to take a step towards ending poverty in the long run is

College tuition should be lowerd, community college should be free, there should be public and private high schools where kids could go and get the general ed they need while focusing on specific skills like art or computers......etc. oh and better teachers, smaller classrooms, more music programs, up to date technology.

The figures come from the IRS

The middle class is paying a small part of overall taxes. Libs love to play the wealth envy card

 

[Annie]

where did you get that figure?

Anyway, the government does like to classify poverty as under 30k a year, but we all know that it is possible to live that life. I think when the government says "poverty" they dont really mean poor they mean struggling, and yes there are MANY struggling familys in america and 780,000 homeless people walking the streets.

So you define 'struggling' at 30k per year, based on what 'family'?

Thats far to much for a nation with such large economic growth. What our problem is, we have a very low minimum wage....for the labor that those people do, they should earn at least 10 bucks an hour, not to mention it would encourage lower class spending and improve the economy overall, not to mention unemployment would go down because everyone would have a reason to flip burgers....On top of that, those workers would pay more taxes instead of the 4% claim.

How do you get from minimum wage, even at $10 per hour to 30k? So, which families live on minimum wage? Whoops, not possible. Then again, it's not 'families' that are minimum wage earners, right?

The middle class is hit the hardest with taxes, and thats the problem with this country... The poor will never be middle class, the middle class will never be high class, and the high class will never be poor.

Oh geez. First, define middle class. Second, provide links to

poor will never be middle class, the middle class will never be high class, and the high class will never be poor.​

The only way (in my opinion) to take a step towards ending poverty in the long run is

College tuition should be lowerd, community college should be free, there should be public and private high schools where kids could go and get the general ed they need while focusing on specific skills like art or computers......etc. oh and better teachers, smaller classrooms, more music programs, up to date technology.

Ok, so you wish to make 'compulsory' jr college? Or just the increase in taxes? Art and computers are the same? Music? I'm so confused. Seriously, I'm all in favor of art, music, foreign languages, tech lessons, and field trips-I'd pay for it separately if not included in my children's curriculum. I do wonder however, how that has zip to do with poor?

 

[red states rule]

Top 1% Pay 35% of Federal Income Tax; Will Only the WSJ Notice?
Posted by Tom Blumer on December 20, 2006 - 09:47.
As noted in a Wednesday subscription-only editorial, Nancy Pelosi already has the steeply progressive tax system Democrats want:

The Top 1% Pay 35%

Maybe our liberal friends are onto something. They keep saying the rich should pay more taxes, and it turns out the rich already are! That's one of the valuable lessons from the IRS's annual study of income tax data, just released for 2004.

Americans who earned more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid $178 billion, or an average of $740,000 per filer, in income taxes in 2004. That's up about one-third from 2002, the year before the Bush tax cuts in marginal income-tax and dividend and capital gains rates. The wealthiest 1% of tax filers paid a remarkable 35% of all individual income-tax payments that year.

I love the following analogy, but WSJ could have gone further with it:

..... Here's a way to think of the distribution of current income-tax payments: Imagine a banquet attended by 100 random Americans. If the bill for the meal is distributed like the income tax, the richest person in the room is required to pay one-third of the tab -- or more than all 50 attendees with a below-average income. The three richest people are charged as much as the other 97. And the 30 or so lowest-income people in the room -- those with a family income of $30,000 or less -- pay nothing and eat for free.

Actually, thanks to the Earned Income Credit, many of those 30 lowest-income people get paid to eat, thanks to the rest of the people in the room.

This is by any definition a "progressive" tax system. Make that highly progressive. It's true that lower-income workers are also dunned with payroll taxes, but that still doesn't do much to alter the fact that the current tax code really does soak the rich.

It would be nice if someone else in the formerly Mainstream Media would let us know that. I don't expect to see it happen.

As to Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, et al -- Don't worry, be happy. You have what you want.

http://newsbusters.org/node/9761