Lets hope he "spreads the wealth".

saveuplife

This thread is ridiculous...

The top 1% pay a greater dollar amount to the Federal Government than the bottom 90%.

Keep this up and soon, they'll be paying the whole thing. Really makes you want to move up the ladder. Private incentives get lost with socialism/communism comrade.

aNiMaL

prytoj wrote:

let me refresh you, your words....

"Always have been" were the key words there.

I used the phrase "go back" with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. Sorry that you didn't get that.

My point is, the uber rich have been uber rich under the Clinton administration and the GW administration. And I have been middle class during the Clinton administration as well as during the GW administration. I don't expect any of that to change under an Obama administration when he rolls back (lets expire) the GW tax cut.

prytoj

aNiMaL wrote:

"Always have been" were the key words there.

I used the phrase "go back" with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. Sorry that you didn't get that.

My point is, the uber rich have been uber rich under the Clinton administration and the GW administration. And I have been middle class during the Clinton administration as well as during the GW administration. I don't expect any of that to change under an Obama administration when he rolls back (lets expire) the GW tax cut.

Ah, now it's tongue in cheeck? It's so much un-intelligent blabbing to me. so many lefties here are claiming W destroyed them, so I'll be calling them to task on that. Sorry you don't get that.

aNiMaL

prytoj wrote:

Ah, now it's tongue in cheeck? It's so much un-intelligent blabbing to me. so many lefties here are claiming W destroyed them, so I'll be calling them to task on that. Sorry you don't get that.

Ahhh, it always was tongue in cheek, sport. That's why I followed it up with "as I always have." I never once said that GW took away my middle-class status. I was middle class under the Clinton years just as I was under the GW years. Just as the uber rich were uber rich under the Clinton years as well as the GW years. Nothing will change that. All the doom and gloom in the world will never change those facts.

Are you claiming that Obama letting the tax cuts for the richest 1% expire, will have grave consequences? And did we have those grave consequences during the Clinton years?

prytoj

Cutting taxes means greater prosperity, upping taxes means less prosperity. This is a fact rooted in history. There's just no getting around that.

aNiMaL

prytoj wrote:

Cutting taxes means greater prosperity, upping taxes means less prosperity. This is a fact rooted in history. There's just no getting around that.

Good, because President-elect Obama will be cutting taxes for the middle class. The lower 90 some percent, that is. That means my fellow middle-class folks will have a little more money in our pockets to spend at the uber rich people's stores. Sounds like a win-win to me.

prytoj

aNiMaL wrote:

Good, because President-elect Obama will be cutting taxes for the middle class. The lower 90 some percent, that is. That means my fellow middle-class folks will have a little more money in our pockets to spend at the uber rich people's stores. Sounds like a win-win to me.

sounds like short-sighted destruction of capitalism in pursuit of a larger socialist agenda to me.

Let's stop concentrating our own wealth upwards. Let's demand that Wal-Mart stock some american made goods, let's commit to supporting smaller business as individuals, let's promote fair trade with china, let's stop spending 100's of dollars a pop for concerts and sporting events, let's put the advertising sector in it's place. Let's govern our own individual wealth in a much more responsible manner.

And lets cut taxes for EVERYONE.

I mean, Obamas plan helps the bottom 5th of the income bracket disproportionally, at the expense of the top 5th. The middle class doesn't see that much of a change. Any improvement will be countered by higher prices and less jobs as the "uber-rich" just pass on the cost of the tax hikes to you and me.

two words....Jimmy Carter.
'nough said.

aNiMaL

prytoj wrote:

sounds like short-sighted destruction of capitalism in pursuit of a larger socialist agenda to me.

Let's stop concentrating our own wealth upwards. Let's demand that Wal-Mart stock some american made goods, let's commit to supporting smaller business as individuals, let's promote fair trade with china, let's stop spending 100's of dollars a pop for concerts and sporting events, let's put the advertising sector in it's place. Let's govern our own individual wealth in a much more responsible manner.

And lets cut taxes for EVERYONE.

I mean, Obamas plan helps the bottom 5th of the income bracket disproportionally, at the expense of the top 5th. The middle class doesn't see that much of a change. Any improvement will be countered by higher prices and less jobs as the "uber-rich" just pass on the cost of the tax hikes to you and me.

two words....Jimmy Carter.
'nough said.

I guess we'll wait and see, and probably agree to disagree.

I agree with the mentality of growing the economy from the bottom up, not from the top down. Money travels uphill faster than it flows downhill. Sounds like you prefer the Reganomics trickle down method. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on what we each think is best for this country.

prytoj

aNiMaL wrote:

I guess we'll wait and see, and probably agree to disagree.

I agree with the mentality of growing the economy from the bottom up, not from the top down. Money travels uphill faster than it flows downhill. Sounds like you prefer the Reganomics trickle down method. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on what we each think is best for this country.

Yeah I, and history, completely disagree with you. Only socialists agree with you on that point.

When the McDonalds burger flipper puts out a now hiring, help-wanted ad in the paper, I'll reconsider your argument. I'll hold my breath.

aNiMaL

We were a capitalistic society before the GW tax cut, and we'll be a capitalistic society after it expires.

We have always been a part capitalistic and part socialistic society. But we have also always been a mostly capitalistic society, and this will not change that. Rest assured, the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor under a President Obama, just as they were under GW, and Clinton, and the first President Bush, and President Carter.

prytoj

aNiMaL wrote:

We were a capitalistic society before the GW tax cut, and we'll be a capitalistic society after it expires.

We have always been a part capitalistic and part socialistic society. But we have also always been a mostly capitalistic society, and this will not change that. Rest assured, the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor under a President Obama, just as they were under GW, and Clinton, and the first President Bush, and President Carter.

True there, but the current mood of the uninformed (especially in a historical context) suggests a will to shift in the direction of more socialism, which is dis-heartening.

Whe I hear folks say that socialism is good (you know, that timeless Chinese classic tune), I get concerned.

good debate though.

prytoj

aNiMaL wrote:

Are you claiming that Obama letting the tax cuts for the richest 1% expire, will have grave consequences? And did we have those grave consequences during the Clinton years?

A couple points here:

Clinton was the rather fortunate recipient of the groundwork laid out by Reagan.

He was also the recipiect of the Internet boom and the Iacocca rescue of Chrysler.

He also was not strapped with a war, like W (who inherited a mess that Clinton failed to clean up)

It would have been pretty hard for any president to screw up in the 90's

Obama has none of these luxuries with which to justify a tax hike. The only possible upcoming economic explosion is that of the green movement, which his plan does evcerything it can to stifle.

Clinton did okay, a better than average diplomat (with one Bin Laden sized exception), and he wasn't dumb enough to fix what wasn't broken economically.

slightofjeff

aNiMaL wrote:

Good, because President-elect Obama will be cutting taxes for the middle class. The lower 90 some percent, that is.

If you really believe this, and this is a prime reason you voted for Obama, prepare to be very disappointed.

I mean, this is not going to happen. It's just not. There's nothing in his profile and track record that would label Obama as a tax-cutter. It was a campaign promise, which are always made to be broken.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I hope I am. But I just don't see any reason to believe it's actually going to happen like that.

South of Seattle

I agree with everything the Boston Puker said in this thread

SundaySilence

prytoj wrote:

Cutting taxes means greater prosperity, upping taxes means less prosperity. This is a fact rooted in history. There's just no getting around that.

It is more significant when applied to the middle class. Money in the hands of the middle class moves at a higher velocity.

Income inequality dries up middle class effective demand leading to less prosperity. In whose hands wealth resides also influences the direction of economic development -responsive to the middle class vs the upper class.

dignin

prytoj wrote:

Yeah I, and history, completely disagree with you. Only socialists agree with you on that point.

When the McDonalds burger flipper puts out a now hiring, help-wanted ad in the paper, I'll reconsider your argument. I'll hold my breath.

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

A 2004 poll of 1,000 economists showed that the majority of economists favor "redistribution." A study by the Southern Economic Journal found that "71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government." Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s.

“ As I've often said... this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing. - Alan Greenspan, June 2005 ”

Economists Timothy Smeeding summed up the current trend of rising inequality on the pages of the Social Science Quarterly:

“ Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be... the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution."


Claims economic inequality weakens societies
In most western democracies, the desire to eliminate or reduce economic inequality is generally associated with the political left. One practical argument in favor of reduction is the idea that economic inequality reduces social cohesion and increases social unrest, thereby weakening the society.

There is evidence that this is true and it is intuitive, at least for small face-to-face groups of people. Alberto Alesina, Rafael Di Tella, and Robert MacCulloch find that inequality negatively affects happiness in Europe but not in the United States.

Ricardo Nicolás Pérez Truglia in "Can a rise in income inequality improve welfare?" proposed a possible explanation: some goods might not be allocated through standard markets, but through a signaling mechanism. As long as income is associated with positive personal traits (e.g. charisma), in more heterogeneous-in-income societies income not only buys traditional goods (e.g. food, a house), but it also buys non-market goods (e.g. friends, confidence). Thus, endogenous income inequality may explain a rise in social welfare.

It has also been argued that economic inequality invariably translates to political inequality, which further aggravates the problem. Even in cases where an increase in economic inequality makes nobody economically poorer, an increased inequality of resources is disadvantageous, as increased economical inequality can possibly lead to a power shift due to an increased inequality in the ability to participate in democratic processes.

The main disagreement between the western democratic left and right, is basically a disagreement on the importance of each effect, and where the proper balance point should be. Both sides generally agree that the causes of economic inequality based on non-economic differences (race, gender, etc.) should be minimized. There is strong disagreement on how this minimization should be achieved.




Arguments based on social justice
Patrick Diamond and Anthony Giddens (professors of Economics and Sociology, respectively) hold that

pure meritocracy is incoherent because, without redistribution, one generation's successful individuals would become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they had accumulated.

They also state that social justice requires redistribution of high incomes and large concentrations of wealth in a way that spreads it more widely, in order to "recognise the contribution made by all sections of the community to building the nation's wealth." (Patrick Diamond and Anthony Giddens, 27 June 2005, New Statesman)

dignin

also something interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Report_2007-2008.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

dignin

Research has shown a link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower.

also on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

as you can see ....i love wiki

aNiMaL

SundaySilence wrote:

It is more significant when applied to the middle class. Money in the hands of the middle class moves at a higher velocity.

Income inequality dries up middle class effective demand leading to less prosperity. In whose hands wealth resides also influences the direction of economic development -responsive to the middle class vs the upper class.

I agree. If you keep the tax cuts in place for the wealthiest, that money stays put and goes nowhere because it makes no difference to the uber wealthy. But those tax cuts redirected towards the middle class (who never saw tax cuts under GW - remember he only gave the tax cut to the wealthiest in the nation) and that money will not sit there long and it will inevitably make the rich richer, but also help the middle class out along the way. It really will be a win-win for everyone by helping the middle class out this time instead of the ones who needed no help.

chadwick

maybe GW and his side kick VP Numb Nuts will stop building that out of control
huge embassy over there in the desert.
isn't that fucker costing billions or trillions of dollars to build?
all the while our economy falls.
good call cock sucker.
i cannot stand those greedy oil havin dickless ball sacks.








thank you
that is all
carry on...