Despite what you think, it's actually not Groundhog Day. Late yesterday, President Obama summoned the press to pontificate about the debt ceiling for the seventh time since the beginning of June. Last night, Obama actually appeared to be presidential, something that was non-existent at his Friday press conference, where his inner man-child showed up to blame Republicans, corporate jets and talk radio for the debt ceiling fallout. The president's speech was purely partisan, with the focus of blaming his predecessor, George W. Bush, and that tone remained. It seems like somebody didn't get their toy this weekend at the toy store because Obama was still whining and blaming his opposition. We've yet to count how many times 'I' was mentioned, but in the meantime, here's a recap of his speech.
If anybody has a secured job in this White House, it's the people that run the corporate jet focus groups. These were mentioned again, along with the standard rhetoric of the oil companies and wealthy Americans not needing tax cuts and how they need to share the sacrifice. Yawn. His tone, although less-whiny and more professional from Friday, was ultimately the same: class warfare on the wealthy, while blaming the GOP as a roadblock. He even mentioned millionaires and billionaires again, which, when translated, means any American making more than $200,000 a year, which ultimately hurts small business owners and employment.
Obama's speech opened with a statement that he took office with a $1 trillion deficit - which isn't true, it was much higher - but that his predecessor had a surplus that was spent on new tax cuts - which increased federal revenue - and on two wars. Absolutely Bush spent too much, but we didn't see any Democrats complaining, and, judging by their drunken spending binge, they're really looking to blame the GOP for their mess. And let's be honest, there hasn't been a surplus in 50 years. Adding the unfunded liabilities for entitlements, the U.S. is trillions of dollars in the red.
READ: Obama Lashes Out at Republicans, Corporate Jets and Talk Radio Over Debt
The shift in tone went towards fear mongering, where Barry Soetoro stated that if Congress doesn't pass a debt ceiling bill by August 2, senior citizens won't get their Social Security checks. This is actually a choice because the federal government will have enough money to pay their interest on the debt, as well as Social Security, veterans benefits, etc. Fear is the emotion Obama and Democrats are using to push their lack of a plan, which fails to address spending cuts.
After scaring the elderly, Obama went right back after the wealthy, where he asked the wealthiest Americans and corporations to pay more by removing tax loopholes. This is where his attack on corporate jet owners appeared once again. One would think corporate jet owners are more of threat than terrorism, as they've been the focus of nearly all deficit speeches given by our incompetent leader. He pushed for Senate Majority Leader and walking disorder Harry Reid's debt ceiling plan, which actually includes money not spent in Afghanistan, thus not being a real spending cut. What's amazing is that the Democrats finally decided to put together a bill with just eight days before the August 2 deadline, showing their concern with the issue.
Despite invoking Ronald Reagan, Obama did not complete his mission of appealing to moderates. The partisan bickering is getting annoying to people, especially because the facts are not on the side of the Democrats. Cut, Cap and Balance does not gut Medicare, as Schmucky Schumer claims it does. The better fact to point out is that every single Senate Democrat voted to cut $500 billion from Medicare when they rammed Obamacare down the throats of the American people. How's that for Mediscare?
President Obama is the one that's political posturing to ensure there isn't another debt ceiling vote before the 2012 election because he's knows it's a fight he can't win. Government stimulus and tax increases will not fix the economy or reduce the deficit. Even a community agitator should understand that, though, it's whether he wants to understand it. In part, many Democrats see the lack of passed bill as a benefit to demonize Republicans, even though it won't have been there fault.
The bigger issue at play is ideology and the fact that Democrats will have a tough time pushing their social justice policies after the 2012 election. America is a capitalist society that wasn't built with government handouts. If you don't like it, you don't have to stay. There are no gulags and individuals can come and go as they please. But realize this, to the liberal readers, history is not on the side of the policies they're pushing for. Granted, liberalism has no rearview mirror, but that doesn't mean America needs to be "fundamentally transformed."
House Speaker John Boehner responded to Obama's speech and laid out the framework that the White House has been working so hard to spin. Boehner called Obama out on his many lies, but there's still much more work to do. All told, Obama's speech was the same name-calling we've heard for so long, with the same push for taxing job creators. If he had spoken to Harry Reid, Obama would know that there aren't tax increases in his plan, so he's going to be disappointed when his war against the wealthy doesn't get fully implemented.
We predict a deal will be made and that America's credit rating will still be reduced because of the lack of attention on reducing the spending and the deficit. And if you saw how the president looked - tired, aging - this was Obama's Nixon moment.
Darrell Lect is a contributing editor for Habledash.
*Cool your jets in the comments section. Quit the stupid name calling - leave that to the mature writers of the site. This website is satirical, though, not many elements of this article possess those attributes.
Follow Habledash on Facebook and Twitter!
Comments
Nothing was very funny about this article.
As for the commenter below, it is a fact that at least half of all Americans pay no taxes, so in my view, they aren't entitled to anything.
You don't realize that the number of people who were able to rise and work themselves into wealth tripled during the 80's and 90's due to lower tax rates, which increased revenue. If you're only interested in making things fare for you, then you obviously don't care about revenue.
Reaganomics gave this wonderful country false growth by doing the easy thing, cutting CORPORATE taxes. Oh, and that growth came at the expense of much lesser developed countries. At the time, developing countries like Japan, China etc. Remember how many electronics were manufactured in Japan in the 80's and 90's? Remember how many other items were manufactured in Hong Kong? They created revenue, and they created jobs overseas. Now you almost cannot find anything manufactured in the USA. Go REAGANOMICS!!!! !
If you don't like it here, you can go to another country and pay 50-75%.
That is the reason the Super-rich live in the USA. I imagine that the peons like us will revolt eventually. If all the Billionaires died the deficit would be covered by the death tax...
Jim, I guess you're not an accountant.
6,000,000 x 100,000,000=600,000,000,000,000
That is 600 trillion. But your point about Jeff's made up numbers still stands.
Which year of the deficit? And how would you recommend they "re-die" for succeeding years?
Amy that is fantastic! If we only had several thousand billionaires to extract the death tax from each year, we'd have the long dreamt "endless supply of tax dollars" they soooo crave.
in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now you don't want to pay for it??
That will solve the deficit.
too much taxes. Well then , let's return to the tax rates under Ronald Reagan. They all loved the man.
So they'll love his tax rates too.
But I have little doubt you and many of your friends did quite well in the Reagan years, many did! but not enough. Your gains were some American's losses.
Thank You, D
Because we realize it is A Trillion Dollars over 12 years. Or about $80 Billion a year and that means that in the end it is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the good it can do. Plus the more money you give the Federal Government the more money it overspends.
If however you are asking me to raise $1 trillion plus in taxes and watch 10 more percent of my fellow employees be walked out the door to cut costs, I'll tell you where you can go. Boehner had agreed to Obama's $800 billion revenue increase proposal prior to Obama asking for more.
Spending went up roughly $1 trillion when Obama took office while revenue dropped $400 billion thanks to unemployment skyrocketing to 10%. Tell me how you're going to cut costs $1 trillion and I'll let you come up with a plan to decrease unemployment to Bush's 6% to recover the $400 billion in revenue. So please explain again how your plan will decrease unemployment.
First of all there is nothing good that can come out of refusing to pay your bills. Even the threat of not paying what you already owe is enough to make your creditors think twice about extending you credit.
It's true this country has overspent and everyone is to blame. Politicians voted for every increase in military spending and threw a trillion dollars down the drain on two wasted wars. We've wasted billions on the war on drugs, building border fences, No Child Left Behind, the medicare prescription drug program, prison for drug abusers and prostitutes, aid to countries like Israel , Star wars missile defense etc etc.
But since there is no desire to cut any such waste, why sacrifice our credit rating if we aren't serious about cutting spending?
As for the huge midterm "gains" in 2008. The GOP was in the unique position where it was gains or get out of town and should not be looked upon as some midterm "mandate" and words spoken from the burning bush.
Stop getting all your info from republican propoganda, and try some neutral sources for a change. Fact is, its republicans and democrats fault equally that we are in this mess, but its republicans that are unwilling to compromise to rive a solution.
...did you SERIOUSLY just site wikipedia as a source?! REALLY
Wikipedia is 'knowledge as held and supported by the population' - not really a set of idiots in an organization filling random lines. So really.. if you think you have the real facts - please DO go ahead and correct the Wikipedia article. I won't take it as gospel... but if it stays up and is supported by others - atleast i'll know that's how the majority of the population understands it (citing references and all).
Stop getting all your info from republican propoganda, and try some neutral sources for a change. Fact is, its republicans and democrats fault equally that we are in this mess, but its republicans that are unwilling to compromise to rive a solution.
Really? Get your info from a neutral source, such as Wikipedia? The public-supplied , un-verified reference website? But I'm sure that there is NEVER any bias in those entries...
Republicans represent the interest of the rich and powerful.
Democrats represent the poor and middle class.
All the polls seem to agree on that.
Their whole precepts of honor, honesty, equitable and fair is predicated from the position of self. Or to say, fairness can not be view in the abstract.
What good are you if you can't help me?
Haiti
It's a high stake game and if the GOP plans to double down with the Tea Party , so be it. ~ Deal the last few cards,. they may take a few hands but they will end up loosing their seat with what looks like a 2008 remake of a bad movie.
The only class warfare being waged is that done by Republicans who whine about an imaginary "entitlement culture", or when they lie and say "half of Americans don't pay taxes. Everything Republicans do and say is class war. Are you going to fight back?
Is this to be ignored?
Most intelligent people are looking at economic strategy that WORKS, the others are burried in propaganda = thus the Obama class warfare.
Obama is into class warfare because his economic strategy is a failure. But if you can blame the rich and try to ignore funamentals you can get dumb dumbs to repeat Propaganda about mansions etc...
Since the 90s were rather prosperous times comparatively, why not go back to those tax rates?
The problem is that economies fluctuate. Keynesian Economics does not work, and to be honest simply encourages inflation. But to be honest I have no problem going back to that tax rate but it does not solve the problem we are now facing.
No Problem, I am just sick of hearing 'raise taxes' because it does not fix the problem which is that we have a down economy and simply do not have enough tax payers to pay for anything. The truth is we have become dependent on the wealthy to pay for government while at the same time increasing the governments size to a hereto untold size. Tax increases are not the solution. Getting people to stop depending on a government to regulate and solve all their problems in my own mind is the issue.
I can tell you exactly what we need to do to balance the budget but no one will want to do it.
1 ) Stop social spending on the Federal Level. - I know this will anger or scare a lot of people but to be honest the government is not equipped to deal with a third of a billion people. It is not responsive enough and regional differences simply do not play well on a Federal Stage.
2 ) Stop the Wars, this will cut $350 Billion right away
The average yearly income for people in that group is $35k, which is barely livable in most parts of the country. Sure, we can say those people just don't work hard enough and they just need to assert themselves more, but the fact is that those people and their place in society is what makes it possible for the people at the top. Therefore, it doesn't seem too much to ask that they pay more. It's not punishing them for being successful.
As for your two suggestions, I agree completely only with 2, but agree that some concessions on social programs (mostly in the efficiency department) may be necessary under the circumstances.
Households not in full employment ( under $15,000 a year ) earned $268 Billion and were taxed $2.1 Billion or effectively 0.7% of their income.
Those that made between $15,000 to $30,000 were taxed ( again according to the IRS ) made $655 Billion and were taxed $19 Billion or an effective 2.9% tax rate
Those that made between $30,000 and $75,000 made $3.2 Trillion and paid $241 Billion in taxes and effective rate of 7.5%
Those that made between $75,000 and $200,000 earned a total of $2.85 Trillion and were taxed $324 Billion or 11.36%
Finally you have those over $200,000 that earned $2.5 trillion and paid $536 Billion in Federal Tax, or about 22%
That means in 2008 we earned as a nation about $8.25 Trillion and paid in taxes $1 Trillion
(continued in next )
Now the total spending in 2008 was $5.3 Trillion dollars between Federal, State, and Local Governments. So that means we earned 8.25 Trillion and we spent $5.3 Trillion in total. Now perhaps it is just me but does that not seem a trifle high to you? Now admittedly they had 'several' sources of revenue for all this but in the end it came out of someone's pocket book.
Also please note that I say the FEDERAL government should not be in charge of social programs. States can do what they wish. Federally I only want them to protect me and keep a judicial system running.
States could then run what they want. Just my take on it. But states I have found are much more responsible with their Budgets than the Federal Government ( well except maybe California but then they probably should be several states now as well )
4 ) I believe in a flat tax, not because I believe the 'rich' deserve a break but because I believe it is too easy for people to grow complacent and engage in silly class warfare rather than simply work for more that they want.
5 ) Get rid of a majority of regulations, they are only used after the fact anyway. This does not mean ALL regulations, there are standards that business must be accountable to but rarely is a law written well enough to keep malfeasance from occurring anyway.
6 ) Did I mention no more social spending on the Federal Level? Well that is the biggy, currently it is simply TOO HIGH and they have shown they are not responsible enough to handle it.
It's not always a matter of working more for what you want. When businesses get larger, they get more powerful, almost to the point of government and capable of using their enormous wealth to unbalance their rivals and keep the little man down. I suppose you think that is fair, but I believe in a level playing field.
Don't forget illiterate... "...have been there[sic] fault..."
Ahh its a right-wing "humor" site... unfortunately didn't Fox try to replicate The Daily Show... and boy miserable failure doesn't beging to describe Foxs efforts at humor. You see the humor just doesn't work from the right... especially when they attack the poor while the top 400 richest Americans control more wealth than the bottom 150 million.
(don't forget property tax & city tax).
I disagree. At the moment, the nations doing best are the mature socialist democracies like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Canada.
On the other hand, the countries where the purest forms of laissez faire capitalism are practiced are called banana republics and failed states.
Do the right thing America. Show the world we can lead the way in democracy and quality of life for all our citizens.
My apologies.
"President Obama is the one that's political posturing" agreed, only the Democrats are playing political games, Republicans are just talking gosh-darn honest good policy. Seriously, listen to yourself.
Look there is tons of money to be made but it requires you to go out and make it and to be honest most people simply don't care enough.
Of course, it is possible to make more money! Chris said that he keeps the profit margins low ON PURPOSE, which is actually quite commendable. If business people, in general, were more interested in passing on value than their own personal profit margins, we would all be much better off.
Btw, if you are paying too much in taxes for your business, it is probably because our system favors large scale businesses. I believe I heard something about Obama wanting not just to cut tax rates for the middle class, but for small businesses...
1. America is a democratic society with a mixed economy.
2. Capitalism isn't a society, it's an economic system.
3. A socialist leaning economy can still be a democratic society too.
4. This nation was built by people, for people, not for corporate entities that are offered the same rights as people.
5. There should be no argument that the founders of this nation had a democracy in mind with a mixed economy
6. As democracy and mixed economies go hand-in-hand, capitalism and corporatocracy go hand in hand.
Which statement is ignorant? Which statement draws any conclusions related to how difficult it is to start a business?
No matter which way you cut it, you're profits will not be as strong in most cases since there is probably a large corporation undercutting you for your market share. e.g. Wal-Mart vs. any mom and pop's retailer.
Oh, and you got me, I misstated and you're right. Without the spouse's $30K salary, some wouldn't be considered in that 2%. You could probably argue that most of that wealth is acquired by one person in nearly all of those households, but you have a null point.
As for the households I brought it up for a different point. There are about what $110 Million Households and this year we are planning on spending $6.2 Trillion in Government Spending.
My point is that while it is nice you are content to earn $27,000 a year your government is spending $56,000 on you this year. Do you not think that excessive?
We are now no longer considered middle class ( as of 2007) but under the poverty level & really think the poor should be looked after in a fair & dignified manner. We are not on welfare ( that is for pple who need this support & many do not) but cut Medicare????
Go get a second or third job and stop whining.
We need to compromise more....we need to tax the wealthy a bit more AND we DO need to lower entitlements... including and esp. welfare.
I think you mean Yale.
A simple thing like a fact matters?
The top 1% possess over 47% of the financial wealth in this country. Why shouldn't they pay more? And I am not jealous of the rich. I would feel shame to have that much money.
It's a lie by DEMS and liberals that tax cuts are why we are in this mess. We are in this mess because congress both DEMS and GOP spend our money to buy our votes.
and that Mayan calendar new age coming. Terrence McKenna baby! Nibiru, where are you? or maybe a good bird flu would do. Or maybe oil will (or has) peaked. How can people think things will just go on as they have? It doesn't matter if debt limit is increased. The population is just grown too large for any taxpayers to uphold.
(net needy over innovative/resi lient)
When people's welfare money runs out they go and find a job.
When you cater to your children, they never stand on their own 2 feet. You have to let them fail a few times, get a few bruisies so that they can be stronger and have the wisdom to succeed.
This is our biggest national sin. Not letting people fail on their own and pick themselves up dust themselves off and start again. No character. It's clear from President's Obama's behavior he's never had that experience himself. He's been catered too his whole life.
We have 39% of Americans receiving food stamps or welfare. 39%? 39% of Americans are unable to help themselves? Come on - really? I worked 2 or 3 jobs while putting myself thru college growing up in a poor inner city. I made it without any support, food stamps, subsides from government. This America. Go get it.
OK you don't like his politics, whatever, but to say Obama has been catered to? What alternate universe are you living in? The plain fact is that to get where he is today Obama had to be smarter and better than the competition for his whole life.
End social programs, and people will suddenly find jobs.
Ignore the debt ceiling, and nothing will happen.
Produce green house gasses endlessly, and climate will not change.
Cut taxes and revenues will go up.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/boehner-s-response-is-work-of-political-fiction-jonathan-alter.html
It's a lie to say wealthy people are not contributing. Plain and simple a lie. It's a classic socialist, marxist statement to get uninformed people to buy into socialism. Looks like you are on that bus.
Don't you think it's a crime that 5% of Americans are forced to carry the load?
Let me repeat the facts. 5% of Americans pay 40% of our tax revenue. 51% of Americans pay NOTHING!
Also 40% is not "most of the taxes" ! Yes it is most, per capita, but not the "most" You're forgetting the other 60% ...paid for mostly by the middle class. Its also true that, compared to past decades, the wealthiest are paying less taxes now then they were! by quite a margin. Particularly in the area of estate taxes. Why should we perpetuate wealth among those that didn't earn it? ie. kids of rich people. Same argument as why should we persist with this multi-generatio nal welfare spending!
The following info was provided by a poster from another forum:
Here's another example: The most recent data shows that the top 1% income earners (those who make more than $400,000 per year) in the USA hold 22% of the nation's income. So, say we have only 100 people in the country with a combined income of $100. The top 1% (1 person) would take in $22 before taxes, and the other 99 would share $78 (79 cents each) before taxes. Based upon the current Bush era tax rates, the top 1% (1 person) would pay 35% in taxes on the $22, leaving that person with $14.30 in after-tax income. The other 99 people would pay, on average, 20% in taxes on their "79 cents", and have after tax-income of "65 cents". So, out of $100 combined income, the top 1% of the country's income earners (those making more than $400K) walk away with $14.30 (after taxes) and the other 99% of Americans walk away with $0.65 each.
The real analysis is that 1 person pays $7.70 in taxes, 51 people pay nothing or get something back and 48 people pay 16 cents.
Why should 1 person pay more than anyone else? Why should 51 people pay nothing?
The wealthy myth exploded. The weathly always pay more in taxes because they make more money.
Once the projessives and unions took control of our education system total failure of well education people.. You prove it.
Once the progressives and unions took control of our education system it has been a Total Failure. You prove it.
"Why should 1 person pay more than anyone else?"
$7.70 vs. 16 cents, and pls don't give me that clap trap about job creators and nobody was ever hired by a poor person. Even Warren Buffett acknowledges such simple logic.
"Why should 51 people pay nothing? The wealthy myth exploded. The weathly always pay more in taxes because they make more money."
If 51 pay nothing than that 1 person must not be creating too many jobs (oh yeah, they all must be lazy welfare loafers living off you).
"The wealthy myth exploded."
It's all in your head Patton, it's all in your head.
"You prove it."
I guess if you're an unoriginal ideologue you can prove anything...to yourself. Don't let that MBA go to yr' head; it's wasn't made for that.
the reason given simply being
"they are your fellow Americans and thus you must support them" ... that is all pretty loaded. Capitalism works best when people feel they can keep what they get, socialism works best when people are willing to share and do their part. Capitalism seems to match the real world better. Socialism may work in European countries that share a strong common identity of race and heritage... seems America is too diverse for that.
And they don't pay taxes because they didn't make the amount required to pay taxes and has nothing to do anyone being "bought" as you suggest.
This disparity existed long before the 44th President took office Sir. and it is a travesty.
How would you fare on $12,000.00 dollars per year? How much could you afford to pay in Federal Taxes?
We are not the WORLD we once were. Maybe that makes more sense than saying we are not the USA we once were.
Stop watching TV, walk more, get out in the world, meet people in your neighborhood, talk about these issues face to face. Show up at your political forums, and stop voting based on party lines. Look at the qualities of your candidate. Where are their financial ties?
Our media sells dissatisfaction , don't buy it. You are okay just being you. You don't need what they are selling.
Above all, think for yourself, you might find you have more in common with that republican/demo crat across the street than you thought. The party name is just a label, don't let it define you.
Not to mention, this is one of the few industries America still dominates.
Same thing with taking away a yacht incentive. The rich people will just use everything less and buy less new things. Costing jobs AND tax revenue.
We need these incentives to remain in place, it will cost factory workers, line workers and pilots their jobs.
But don't sit there and advocate penalizing me for having the experience of working 70-80 hours week for years to build a successful business, often worrying that the company would go under and I would go bankrupt. Now we are profitable and successful and all I hear is how I should pay my fair share. Which I do and then some, not to mention we provide quarterly bonuses, 401k and no-cost health insurance to our employees.
Then you want to promote murder and revolution for me. You are insane.
see next post...
Here's another example: The most recent data shows that the top 1% income earners (those who make more than $400,000 per year) in the USA hold 22% of the nation's income. So, say we have only 100 people in the country with a combined income of $100. The top 1% (1 person) would take in $22 before taxes, and the other 99 would share $78 (79 cents each) before taxes. Based upon the current Bush era tax rates, the top 1% (1 person) would pay 35% in taxes on the $22, leaving that person with $14.30 in after-tax income. The other 99 people would pay, on average, 20% in taxes on their "79 cents", and have after tax-income of "65 cents". So, out of $100 combined income, the top 1% of the country's income earners (those making more than $400K) walk away with $14.30 (after taxes) and the other 99% of Americans walk away with $0.65 each.
Clearly you are NOT aware of the tax flowthru for small businesses or you wouldn't be posted your comments. Did you see my post about how it really works?
I guess when Gates and Allen started Microsoft they were loaded. Maybe with family money...which they didn't earn themselves.
No - Small businesses create (or used to create) the overwhelming majority of jobs in this economy. These jobs are created by educated, innovative, ambitious people with good ideas, products and services to offer. Being rich usually isn't on this list.
Nice try. The wealthy and their flunkies always paint themselves as the victim in the class war when in actuallity they are and always have been the aggressors. Hitler was a victim back in 1932 if they are looking for company.
Also, an awful lot of small business owners rely on customers who are not actually wealthy to stay afloat. If your product is something that the middle class can afford and are likely to want, you'll probably actually be richer in a society that makes it harder to get super-rich or super-poor than in a society where a small fraction of the populace control most of the money and a large fraction have nothing.
CEO's are th enemy. They outsource jobs, they have contempt for their shareholders. They are in it for themselves. How many times have we been reminded that their average slaries are climbing to the stratosphere while the worker and middle execs get screwed with layoffs and subpar wages. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Ther is another class of voters who are madder than hell and it isn't the Tea Party. Wake up and smell the coffee.
See you at Bull Run Joe D.
What are they stealing from your wallet? This is the cry of jealous person. Go get another job, try 3 jobs and stop wanting to be rich. Get off your .... and do it yourself.
they hold you back by removing the ladder that they themselves ascended, SO THEY WON'T BE REQUIRED TO COMPETE. ~ oops! didn't mean to shout.
They hold you back in as many ways they can find at their disposal.
They pay their friends to not allow you the same opportunities that they themselves had.
current example:, mandated voter restrictions and then restrict access to government agencies that create the needed documentation to comply.
Insider Trading; is another example of people being denied a level playing field.
The list is long Sir. ~ If you are not aware of these things, ~ you must not be very engaged in to system or was born with a silver spoon.
Also, i dont feel so bad when people earning more than 250K can't buy as many heels as they would like. Cry me a river. I get a little more sympathetic when trying to cut the bus service for the elderly.
Why should anyone pay a higher tax rate than anyone else? Becasue they make more money they already pay more in taxes.
2. because they're paying less now than they used to.
3. Because, in a country with a shrinking middle class , if things go on as they are, there will be no one to inovate in the future. (son's of the rich and poor classes produce very few true innovaters)
4. Because the estate tax is ridiculously low today. How many children of rich people to you know that have truly done something with their lives? All a windfall inheiritance does is cause complacency, lassitude and bickering among the offspring due to receive it.
- A Wealthy American
They started voting at approx 20yo, from 1974 - 1984. They turn 60 at from 2014 to 2024.
Baby Boomers control over 80% of personal financial assets and more than 50% of discretionary spending power. They are responsible for more than half of all consumer spending, buy 77% of all prescription drugs, 61% of OTC medication and 80% of all leisure travel
The defict went up from 40% of GDP to 65% of GDP, in the reagan/bush years.
It went up from 65% of GDP to 80% of GDP in Clinton/BushJr. yrs.
And now Obama has it at about 90% of GDP.
So boomers, pay up!
Tax cuts are a very inefficient way to encourage job creation - every job directly created *is tax-deductible* .
We have not seen wealth distribution like now since the 1920s, the "golden age". They think they are the deserving and the nest of us a bunch of slackers. It is past time the rest of us leveled the playing field. To hell with Safire and to hell with the rich!
If you earn 30 million a year shurgable, but VERY few people actually get million or more in cash. And ALL tax rates are based on GROSS income - not net. This hits ALL sole proprieters and famers. No one talks about this aspect of being "rich".
When you swim among the sharks, swim with friends.
They convince all the middle class whites to vote for them by getting them riled up over abortion, and gays, and guns, and brown people.
If you're rich, and you vote Republican, I understand. Voting your pocketbook can be despicable, but at least it's rational.
If you're not *extremely* wealthy, and you vote Republican, you're just a fool.
Kind of go without saying regardless who's the topic.
How do you take "wealth" out of politics?
Perhaps only in the early, opening stages of an open revolution. ~ maybe?
It's only called class warfare when we fight back or offer opposition.
If we allow them to do as they wish, ~ it's no longer war fare.
"The absence of war does not constitute a peace"
JFK
How? It's the comradery of their angst concerning the black man in the white house. (I posted this before, must have done something wrong, lo).
The amount leaking out exceeds the amount going in.
a two part problem that requires a two part solution.
Seal the leaks, (wars, gaff,waste,)
Increase the flow. ( demand spending from"ALL" sectors) that are capable to spend.
Post Guard on the bucket!
The tea party has posted guard on an empty bucket while offering few plans to fill it. They seem to have a thing for "buckets"
RSS feed for comments to this post