Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

[Care4all]

293-Bern80 There is a reason that Obama made it through the primaries to run against Bush. Because he represents the fast changing face of the US. The republicans are in denial and are digging themselves a big hole. Without major change with this party, there may never be another Ronny in the white house.

I personally don't deny the face of the country changing. It's just not for the better. Look at how we evolve. On a fundamental level humans in their innovations and technology strive to make things easier for themselves. Sometimes for the better, sometimes at our own peril. The point is most people are going to travel the path of least resistance. Everyone also has a tipping point where there level of disagreement for their current life style pushes them to action to change it. Because on so many fronts, things have made so much easier for people as a result simply getting by takes considerably less use of your potential than it once did.

That translates into the political realm for dems quite nicely. Look at Obama. 'I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do that for you'. And we have lost sight of the role government should play. It isn't their job to babysit you through life. that doesn't do society as a whole any favors. It makes it weaker. And what candidate could possibly get elected on the truth. That if we want this strong society that everyone would surely agree we have, then YOU are going to have to put in the work. Because YOU are the single best solution for changing your position in life. Who really wants to hear that. Of course their gonna vote for the guy that says you shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your health care needs and you should get a 5k from the taxpayers for your next automobile. Frankly I don't wonder why the dems are in power. I wonder why on earth they wouldn't be.

You think the NON WORKING CLASS or the very POOR, are the ones that took advantage of the car deal?

You are WAYYYYYYYYYY WRONG on this one Bern, WAY WRONG!

the car thingy was for the MIDDLE CLASS or the WEALTHY, the poor couldn't qualify for the most part....

The car dealerships here and in florida were reporting that what they were worried about MOST on the clunker thing was whether Credit would be available for the promotion due to the limitation on credit, where only those with excellent credit and income history could or would qualify for the new car loan.

The cars that accepted as clunkards were cars that got less than 18 miles per gallon.

I own a 15 year old clunker that matt and I wanted to trade in so we could take advantage of the deal, but did not qualify because our 15 year old car got 22 miles per gallon.

The cars qualifying were big ass SUV's, big 8 cylander trucks, etc...cars that were fairly expensive in the first place that i doubt the underprivileged even owned unless second hand....and the poor probably would not have qualified for the new car loan with the tightened credit.... imo.

care

 

[Newby]

293-Bern80 There is a reason that Obama made it through the primaries to run against Bush. Because he represents the fast changing face of the US. The republicans are in denial and are digging themselves a big hole. Without major change with this party, there may never be another Ronny in the white house.

I personally don't deny the face of the country changing. It's just not for the better. Look at how we evolve. On a fundamental level humans in their innovations and technology strive to make things easier for themselves. Sometimes for the better, sometimes at our own peril. The point is most people are going to travel the path of least resistance. Everyone also has a tipping point where there level of disagreement for their current life style pushes them to action to change it. Because on so many fronts, things have made so much easier for people as a result simply getting by takes considerably less use of your potential than it once did.

That translates into the political realm for dems quite nicely. Look at Obama. 'I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do that for you'. And we have lost sight of the role government should play. It isn't their job to babysit you through life. that doesn't do society as a whole any favors. It makes it weaker. And what candidate could possibly get elected on the truth. That if we want this strong society that everyone would surely agree we have, then YOU are going to have to put in the work. Because YOU are the single best solution for changing your position in life. Who really wants to hear that. Of course their gonna vote for the guy that says you shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your health care needs and you should get a 5k from the taxpayers for your next automobile. Frankly I don't wonder why the dems are in power. I wonder why on earth they wouldn't be.

Couldn't agree more with all of your comments. I'd rep you again if I could.

 

[editec]

293-Bern80 There is a reason that Obama made it through the primaries to run against Bush. Because he represents the fast changing face of the US. The republicans are in denial and are digging themselves a big hole. Without major change with this party, there may never be another Ronny in the white house.

I personally don't deny the face of the country changing. It's just not for the better. Look at how we evolve. On a fundamental level humans in their innovations and technology strive to make things easier for themselves. Sometimes for the better, sometimes at our own peril. The point is most people are going to travel the path of least resistance. Everyone also has a tipping point where there level of disagreement for their current life style pushes them to action to change it. Because on so many fronts, things have made so much easier for people as a result simply getting by takes considerably less use of your potential than it once did.

That translates into the political realm for dems quite nicely. Look at Obama. 'I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do that for you'. And we have lost sight of the role government should play. It isn't their job to babysit you through life. that doesn't do society as a whole any favors. It makes it weaker. And what candidate could possibly get elected on the truth. That if we want this strong society that everyone would surely agree we have, then YOU are going to have to put in the work. Because YOU are the single best solution for changing your position in life. Who really wants to hear that. Of course their gonna vote for the guy that says you shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your health care needs and you should get a 5k from the taxpayers for your next automobile. Frankly I don't wonder why the dems are in power. I wonder why on earth they wouldn't be.

You think the NON WORKING CLASS or the very POOR, are the ones that took advantage of the car deal?

You are WAYYYYYYYYYY WRONG on this one Bern, WAY WRONG!

the car thingy was for the MIDDLE CLASS or the WEALTHY, the poor couldn't qualify for the most part....

The car dealerships here and in florida were reporting that what they were worried about MOST on the clunker thing was whether Credit would be available for the promotion due to the limitation on credit, where only those with excellent credit and income history could or would qualify for the new car loan.

The cars that accepted as clunkards were cars that got less than 18 miles per gallon.

I own a 15 year old clunker that matt and I wanted to trade in so we could take advantage of the deal, but did not qualify because our 15 year old car got 22 miles per gallon.

The cars qualifying were big ass SUV's, big 8 cylander trucks, etc...cars that were fairly expensive in the first place that i doubt the underprivileged even owned unless second hand....and the poor probably would not have qualified for the new car loan with the tightened credit.... imo.

care

Yup!

$4C program was a form of middle class (and above) welfare, as well as a stimulus program for the auto industry.

The poor did not benefit for the most part because the poor are bearly making it right now.

If the government really wanted to help the poor, they'd have to not only give them $4,500 for their clunkers, but help them qualify for new car loans by giving them additional money to pay for them, too.

I don't advocate that idea, but I am saying the $4C program didn't help out a whole lotta truly impoverished people.

 

[Newby]

Was it intended for the poor to begin with? I thought it was supposed to help the auto industry as well as the environment by getting gas guzzlers off of the road? It's yet another example that anything the government does, it does very poorly.

 

[Bern80]

293-Bern80 There is a reason that Obama made it through the primaries to run against Bush. Because he represents the fast changing face of the US. The republicans are in denial and are digging themselves a big hole. Without major change with this party, there may never be another Ronny in the white house.

I personally don't deny the face of the country changing. It's just not for the better. Look at how we evolve. On a fundamental level humans in their innovations and technology strive to make things easier for themselves. Sometimes for the better, sometimes at our own peril. The point is most people are going to travel the path of least resistance. Everyone also has a tipping point where there level of disagreement for their current life style pushes them to action to change it. Because on so many fronts, things have made so much easier for people as a result simply getting by takes considerably less use of your potential than it once did.

That translates into the political realm for dems quite nicely. Look at Obama. 'I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do that for you'. And we have lost sight of the role government should play. It isn't their job to babysit you through life. that doesn't do society as a whole any favors. It makes it weaker. And what candidate could possibly get elected on the truth. That if we want this strong society that everyone would surely agree we have, then YOU are going to have to put in the work. Because YOU are the single best solution for changing your position in life. Who really wants to hear that. Of course their gonna vote for the guy that says you shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your health care needs and you should get a 5k from the taxpayers for your next automobile. Frankly I don't wonder why the dems are in power. I wonder why on earth they wouldn't be.

You think the NON WORKING CLASS or the very POOR, are the ones that took advantage of the car deal?

You are WAYYYYYYYYYY WRONG on this one Bern, WAY WRONG!

the car thingy was for the MIDDLE CLASS or the WEALTHY, the poor couldn't qualify for the most part....

The car dealerships here and in florida were reporting that what they were worried about MOST on the clunker thing was whether Credit would be available for the promotion due to the limitation on credit, where only those with excellent credit and income history could or would qualify for the new car loan.

The cars that accepted as clunkards were cars that got less than 18 miles per gallon.

I own a 15 year old clunker that matt and I wanted to trade in so we could take advantage of the deal, but did not qualify because our 15 year old car got 22 miles per gallon.

The cars qualifying were big ass SUV's, big 8 cylander trucks, etc...cars that were fairly expensive in the first place that i doubt the underprivileged even owned unless second hand....and the poor probably would not have qualified for the new car loan with the tightened credit.... imo.

care

Wanna point out where I said only poor people used that cash for clunkers program? I don't care who used the program. It's a piss poor idea, period.

It's always interesting when people take one sentence out of a post, a sentence that really wasn't the point of the post to begin with, and misread it on top of that.

 

[Bern80]

Yup!

$4C program was a form of middle class (and above) welfare, as well as a stimulus program for the auto industry.

The poor did not benefit for the most part because the poor are bearly making it right now.

If the government really wanted to help the poor, they'd have to not only give them $4,500 for their clunkers, but help them qualify for new car loans by giving them additional money to pay for them, too.

I don't advocate that idea, but I am saying the $4C program didn't help out a whole lotta truly impoverished people.

Yes, it was a poor idea. But fairly recent history should tell us giving money to people that have little likely hood of paying it back ain't the greatest idea for the economy either.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I personally don't deny the face of the country changing. It's just not for the better. Look at how we evolve. On a fundamental level humans in their innovations and technology strive to make things easier for themselves. Sometimes for the better, sometimes at our own peril. The point is most people are going to travel the path of least resistance. Everyone also has a tipping point where there level of disagreement for their current life style pushes them to action to change it. Because on so many fronts, things have made so much easier for people as a result simply getting by takes considerably less use of your potential than it once did.

That translates into the political realm for dems quite nicely. Look at Obama. 'I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do that for you'. And we have lost sight of the role government should play. It isn't their job to babysit you through life. that doesn't do society as a whole any favors. It makes it weaker. And what candidate could possibly get elected on the truth. That if we want this strong society that everyone would surely agree we have, then YOU are going to have to put in the work. Because YOU are the single best solution for changing your position in life. Who really wants to hear that. Of course their gonna vote for the guy that says you shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your health care needs and you should get a 5k from the taxpayers for your next automobile. Frankly I don't wonder why the dems are in power. I wonder why on earth they wouldn't be.

You think the NON WORKING CLASS or the very POOR, are the ones that took advantage of the car deal?

You are WAYYYYYYYYYY WRONG on this one Bern, WAY WRONG!

the car thingy was for the MIDDLE CLASS or the WEALTHY, the poor couldn't qualify for the most part....

The car dealerships here and in florida were reporting that what they were worried about MOST on the clunker thing was whether Credit would be available for the promotion due to the limitation on credit, where only those with excellent credit and income history could or would qualify for the new car loan.

The cars that accepted as clunkards were cars that got less than 18 miles per gallon.

I own a 15 year old clunker that matt and I wanted to trade in so we could take advantage of the deal, but did not qualify because our 15 year old car got 22 miles per gallon.

The cars qualifying were big ass SUV's, big 8 cylander trucks, etc...cars that were fairly expensive in the first place that i doubt the underprivileged even owned unless second hand....and the poor probably would not have qualified for the new car loan with the tightened credit.... imo.

care

Wanna point out where I said only poor people used that cash for clunkers program? I don't care who used the program. It's a piss poor idea, period.

It's always interesting when people take one sentence out of a post, a sentence that really wasn't the point of the post to begin with, and misread it on top of that.

So tell me Bern why is putting more fuel efficeint cars on the road a BAD thing? Why is saving people money on every fill up a BAD thing? Why is lessening our dependence on ME oil a BAD thing?

 

[Bern80]

You think the NON WORKING CLASS or the very POOR, are the ones that took advantage of the car deal?

You are WAYYYYYYYYYY WRONG on this one Bern, WAY WRONG!

the car thingy was for the MIDDLE CLASS or the WEALTHY, the poor couldn't qualify for the most part....

The car dealerships here and in florida were reporting that what they were worried about MOST on the clunker thing was whether Credit would be available for the promotion due to the limitation on credit, where only those with excellent credit and income history could or would qualify for the new car loan.

The cars that accepted as clunkards were cars that got less than 18 miles per gallon.

I own a 15 year old clunker that matt and I wanted to trade in so we could take advantage of the deal, but did not qualify because our 15 year old car got 22 miles per gallon.

The cars qualifying were big ass SUV's, big 8 cylander trucks, etc...cars that were fairly expensive in the first place that i doubt the underprivileged even owned unless second hand....and the poor probably would not have qualified for the new car loan with the tightened credit.... imo.

care

Wanna point out where I said only poor people used that cash for clunkers program? I don't care who used the program. It's a piss poor idea, period.

It's always interesting when people take one sentence out of a post, a sentence that really wasn't the point of the post to begin with, and misread it on top of that.

So tell me Bern why is putting more fuel efficeint cars on the road a BAD thing? Why is saving people money on every fill up a BAD thing? Why is lessening our dependence on ME oil a BAD thing?

Those aren't bad things. Forcing me (the taxpayer) to help buy you a new car, is. Why should I (I in this case being a person with a car who didn't meet the cash for clunkers requirements) who did the environmentally concsious (or unconciously as a bi-product) thing, be forced to pay for someone who did not make such an environmentally concious purchase?