As usual, under Democrat rule the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, AGAIN.

How's that hopey changey thing working out for all of you bleeding-hearts? Apparently not so good.
According to the front page of todays Toledo Blade, with Democraps in charge, THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR ARE GETTING POORER again.


Wealth gaps by race widen
WASHINGTON -- The wealth gaps between whites and minorities have grown to their widest levels in a quarter-century.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11207/1162936-84-0.stm

No votes yet

Republicans keep telling us that if we give the rich more money they will create jobs for everyone. Since that clearly isn't the case let's put their tax rate back to where it was during the roaring 90s?

When's the last time a poor person gave someone a job?

When 50 of them paid rent.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Subsidized or unsubsidized?

Again, the richest are the richest they've ever been, taxes are at a 60 year low, union membership is at a 50 year low. We live in a conservative utopia. Where are the jobs.

Also the rich don't create jobs because they are rich, they're rich because they hire guys like me.

All that and with a Democrat in the White House. One who threatens not to make Social Security Payments too!!! But you forgot conservatives haven't achieved their goal of killing puppies, grandparents, and hope. So maybe we'll have to wait for full utopia.

What's funny about that is had the Democrats allowed a privatization of Social Security when the GOP proposed it, under the ruling in Perry v. U.S. which supported the 14th Amendment the government would have engaged in a business contract with it's citizens and would be contractually obligated to make those payments just as the debt payments.

So much for the lockbox the Dems touted eh? I guess they forgot to lock it.

MikeyA

When you pay a higher percentage of your $$ in income taxes the the "rich" people do, THEN you can bitch.
I wonder how many of the liberal sheep that whine the most about "tax cuts for the rich" are even paying taxes?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

It obviously doesn't bear repeating for the thousandth time that, in fact, poor people do pay all sorts of taxes: FICA, sales, social security and wide range of others. It is true that the federal income tax is progressive. But it is the exception rather than the rule. The poor and middle class in this country still pay a greater share of their overall income in taxes than do the wealthy, who pay a lower effective rate than the rest of us when all is said and done.

Where is all the hatered and whining about Tiger Woods pulling down $20 Million/yr
Or the crying about LeBron James $15 Million/yr
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/index.html

Tell me who these guys employ besides sports managers and illegal immigrants to clean their huge houses? Tell me why these guys deserve to make that damn much cash when they don't have the skills needed to clean their own kitchens?

Why aren't the Libs/Dems carrying pitchforks and torches for these over-paid morons who just happen to know how to throw a damn ball?

And why is it OK for these morons who know how to throw a ball to make so damn much money but a graduate of college that runs a multi-national corporation that employes THOUSANDS of Americans and puts food on their tables is somehow "evil"?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR ARE GETTING POORER
And your getting dumber and dumber turd.

is this quote:


The analysis shows the racial and ethnic impact of the economic meltdown, which ravaged housing values and sent unemployment soaring. It offers the most direct government evidence yet of the disparity between predominantly younger minorities whose main asset is their home and older whites who are more likely to have 401(k) retirement accounts or other stock holdings.

So this is more an indication of lifestyle and the fact that the recent downturn has more negatively impacted 'poor' people more than 'rich' people who have the greater ability to weather such storms.

Demonizing 'rich' people who have planned for their retirements and saved over their lifetimes - or taxing them more - doesn't change the fact that younger individuals don't - and won't - have the accumulated wealth that older individuals do, no matter what their race.

So let's take a look at what negatively impacts the younger minorities' ability to get a job and why they're more like to suffer unemployment in an economic downturn. Many economists (like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell - both minorities themselves) say that the higer minimum wage most negatively impacts young black men who have no skills. From this article by Williams:, http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams81.1.html :

"But among black males in this group, each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased employment by 6.5 percent."

The authors go on to say, "The effect is similar for hours worked: each 10 percent increase reduces hours worked by 3 percent among white males, 1.7 percent for Hispanic males, and 6.6 percent for black males."
...
Why do young black males suffer unequal harm from minimum wage increases? Even and Macpherson say that they're more likely to be employed in low-skilled jobs in eating and drinking establishments. These are businesses with narrow profit margins and are more adversely affected by increases in minimum wage increases. For 16-to-24-year-old men without a high school diploma, 25 percent of whites and 31 percent of blacks work at an eating and drinking establishment. Compounding the discriminatory burden of minimum wages, not discussed by the authors, are the significant educational achievement differences between blacks and whites.

The best way to sabotage chances for upward mobility of a youngster from a single-parent household, who resides in a violent slum and has attended poor-quality schools is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire him. The way to accomplish that is to mandate an employer to pay such a person a wage that exceeds his skill level.

These factors are not the fault of someone who has worked hard, invested, saved and become 'rich'.

I raise this point because there is so much more to the issue than class warfare - and focusing on class warfare rhetoric means the actual causes and effects of disparity in income get pushed aside and ignored.

But here's another question - if we don't 'want' disparity in income, why don't we just let the government confiscate everything everyone makes or has and distribute it as those idiots (yes, both parties) see fit? That's really the only way to ensure 'fairness' in wealth because all the 'tax the rich more and give more to the poor' discussions and efforts will NEVER result in the desired outcome of making all peope equal in wealth.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

No wonder the little boy has such a hard-on for WSPD.

He is taking all of his marching orders and being told what to think by Thom Hartmann.

Besides cut-n-paste and being told what to say by Thom Hartmann, does Wolfboy have an original thought at all?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Then there is this interesting article that analyzes IRS data about mobility between income brackets:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264296/rich-aren-t-getting-richer...

A key point:

About 50 percent of U.S. households move from one income group to a different one every decade, and actual households initially in the low-income groups see proportionally more income growth than do actual households initially in the high-income groups.
...
Progressives ignore this income mobility when denouncing the wicked, wicked rich and their income-hogging ways. This leads to a lot of bad analysis and stupid rhetoric.
...
But the income-mobility figures suggest that those gains already have been more widely distributed than most people think. (In no small part, incomes are distributed over time: Most people earn more money as they get older.

Maggie,
Most corporations pay no taxes at all, even as they rake in billions and sit on tens of billions. All I'm saying is corpations like Exxon, GE, Boeing and Bank of America who all made billions last year should have to pay taxes.

... the problem isn't the corporations - it's Congress who writes the tax laws. :)

But I will disagree that 'most corporations pay no taxes at all.' In fact, most corporations are small businesses who pay considerable taxes - and many of them are LLCs or Sub-Chapter S corps that pay at the individual tax rate - a much higher rate.

This is not to say that there aren't some who pay nothing - or pay nothing additional after their quarterly payments as a result of filing their yearly returns.

But just saying that you want to tax corporations more isn't the solution. Taxation policy shouldn't be based upon who you are or what product you make. Corporations should know what the tax rates are going to be and there shouldn't be carve-outs (subsidies or credits) for some that aren't available to all.

Additionally, the issue of taxing corporations has nothing to do with the disparity in wealth of individuals. It's a fallacy to believe that taxing corporations more will result in less wealth for just the CEOs...it actually means less money for the corporation and that 'loss' will be distributed among ALL employees as well as stockholders. The majority of the middle class in America owns stocks - either directly or through mutual funds, retirements accounts or pensions. Taxing corporations more directly impacts, in a negative way, the millions of middle class individuals who rely upon their profits for their future retirements.

Again, not just a simple issue. :)

No, most do not pay taxes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUS...

Retirement plans and the middle class did just fine during the roaring 90's.

Conservatives keep wanting to tie taxes on the rich ("rich people create jobs") and taxes on corporations ("401k!") with the middle class. All this to provide cover. The richest are the richest they've been in a generation. Where are the jobs? As for 401ks? The 00's were a wash pretty much wash while corporations and CEOs made a bundle.

Under Obama my 401k has done great and the rich have gotten richer, this doesn't translate in the health of the overall economy and stability of the middle class that you keep eluding too.

...you didn't read the articles I linked to if you *believe* that the rich are the richest they've been in a generation. People move into and out of the 'rich' categories and that mobility means that the same people who were *rich* 10 years ago might not still be *rich* today. Conversely, it also means that people who weren't *rich* 10 years ago now are.

Why must it always be 'take from the rich'???

If you think the *rich* pay a lower overall tax rate on their income than other tax brackets, why not lower the other tax brackets instead of raising the *rich* one? If the goal is to have everyone paying the same percentage, then advocate for a single rate applied to every dollar in income, regardless of how much a person makes. That is certainly more fair than expecting someone who earns a little to pay nothing while expecting someone who earns a lot to pay all.

Doesn't say that most corporations don't pay taxes. It says:

"...about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005."

Not paying taxes in a single year - or even in two or three years - could be for a variety of reasons, including that they didn't OWE any due to operating losses - as the article also explained:

"..corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.

That's not the same as saying that most corporations don't pay income taxes.

Additionally, SensorG, if it's wrong for corporations to pay nothing as a result of less income and tax credits, is it not also wrong for individuals to pay nothing for the same or similar reasons? If you apply the same logic you're using for corporations to individuals, then people with low incomes or those who get a refund because of tax credits should have their tax loopholes closed so that everyone is sharing in the cost of the government.

Again, this is a much more complicated issue than just 'tax the rich."

Maggie, Sensor isn't going to listen to you. He has tunnel vision issues.

The 400 Richest Americans Pay An 18% Tax Rate

http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlenzner/2011/07/25/the-400-richest-america...

I pay way more than 18%. So the rich have low taxes...where are the jobs.

The 400 richest Americans have already earned their money which is why their WORTH is so high not their INCOME. We don't have a WORTH tax we have an INCOME tax.

When your WORTH surpasses your INCOME most of the money you will then make will be in capital gains (or gains on your previously owned capital). Now investments are/have/and will continue to be the best way to increase your economic status. If you raise capital gains taxes yes you have just taxed the richest Americans at a higher rate but you've also now also raised taxes on retirees 401K's and pensions.

MikeyA

At least if you are Tim Geithner, a multi-millionaire, personal friends with Barak Obama and are in charge of the Fed.

"According to Mr. Geithner, he initially failed to pay payroll taxes on income he received from the International Monetary Fund in 2001, and then repeated the error in the three subsequent years, despite the help of an accountant."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258571706004547.html

THIS is the kind of people Dimocraps have put in charge of the economy. Do you wonder why we keep importing money from China?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Interesting... I didn't know Geithner was a recipient of IMF bucks. I DID know that Obama's mother worked for Geithner's father at one point in time. And it's obvious that in this case, as in most cases, installing cronies into government offices is a disaster for the country as a whole.

I don't actually like the class warfare arguments, because all they do is run in circles, but, nevertheless, I think that both sides have good points. My relatively poor grandfather never accepted any government subsidies for "not planting" his farm fields - he considered it to be dishonest. My understanding, however, is that people like David Rockefeller do it all the time. Mega rich farm owners do not need such subsidies - that and many other loopholes could be closed. Why the Republicans don't think about things like that mystifies me.

My real pet peeve is with all the money we give to other countries - in the trillions. And they are arguing in congress about a trillion or so? It's like they think U.S. citizens are idiots. They KNOW we hate so-called foreign aid. I heard Dick Morris recently on some radio show say that all the Republicans have to do is... [my summary of his comments] bring up foreign aid in the House of Reps, and hold the Democrats' feet to the fire on this topic - make moves to eliminate a lot of foreign aid, and they will win the media war. It is a topic Americans understand. We have a President threatening to withhold Social Security payments when he has NO authority to do this, but who is mum on the topic of why he is not stopping the (what was it?) TWO BILLION a year in free U.S. money to Egypt. If we are broke - STOP ALL FOREIGN AID. Simple, and the U.S. public would cheer. The U.S. gives TRILLIONS AWAY TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. This is unconstitutional and crazy. And Dick Morris is correct - if the Republicans REALLY wanted to trim waste, that's where they should start. Pass the legislation and MAKE this prez veto it. He wouldn't have any chance of re-election in 2012 if they did this one simple thing. I don't know exactly how stupid congress thinks we are - but I know how stupid I think they are, if they don't stop giving our money away.

And btw, I would LOVE to see this prez (or any prez) just TRY to stop one Social Security check. The Repubs could then run an actual live elephant for prez in 2012 and the circus animal would win the election.

The ant and the grass hopper....

Obviously the ant is a racist bastard and must be taught some social justice...

So the grass Grass hoppers unite and form a constituancy group!

Just because the grass hoppers chose not to work all summer is no reason they should starve in the winter...that's not FAIR!

No...the ants should be forced to share for the general welfare and the common good....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

OK I'm stealing from wolfman now. I'm posting Daily Show clips.

I do have to wonder though did he really think he would look like some wise FDR sitting by a fire or did he quit as Jon Stewart suggests?

MikeyA

Good article Maggie.

Another good case study towards socialism in America and government reliance is that with the Native American population.

The federal government spends over 3 billion each year on programs specifically for Native Americans and that's in addition to the money tribes receive from other venues that can skirt state laws such as casino gambling and tobacco and alcohol sales which are distributed generally among it's members.

Yet most reservations have living conditions that resemble third world countries. They face high mortality rates that are generally due to alcohol and drug related illnesses. Their schools are by in large substandard, their teens commit suicide more than any other racial group and they have higher infant mortality rates than any other racial group.

MikeyA

Horrible article filled with every inaccurate conservative meme imaginable. It even takes a shot at Clinton. I expect this out some of the others, but thought you were smarter than this.

... You don't have to agree with the editorial conclusions of the article I shared, but resorting to a personal criticism of me isn't what I expected as a result. If you want to dispute the conclusions, let's have that discussion.

As for the article itself, there's really no argument with the facts contained therein:

* Stock market investments, including IRAs, 401(k)s and other market-based accounts, make up 28% of white Americans' wealth, vs. just 19% for blacks and 15% for Hispanics.

So if the stock market goes up, then whites will have a higher wealth than blacks and Hispanics simply because the stock market makes up a larger proportion of their assets. There's nothing conservative or liberal in that.

* But while the U.S. has more than 70 means-tested welfare programs, the poverty rate today is higher than it was in the late 1960s.

So the programs, designed to help people get off welfare do not work and we now have more people dependent on the government. You can speculate all you want about the reasons why, but I'll bet the statistics will show more minorities on welfare than whites (at least by percentages of population) and that affects the net worth data. Again, no conservative or liberal in that fact, though certainly conservative and liberal reasons as to the cause of the failure of welfare programs to 'end poverty.'

* The most recent leg down in minority wealth is due almost entirely to America's massive housing market intervention — funded by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, overseen by HUD and pushed by influential Democrats. It has only made things worse.

Starting with President Clinton, the federal government coerced banks into making loans to uncreditworthy minority borrowers to boost homeownership.

The implicit subsidy in this arrangement was itself a form of welfare. When the housing market tanked, it was inevitable that those mostly minority households would have higher delinquency and default rates, and lose much of their wealth. That's what happened.

This isn't a dig at Clinton - why do you see an attack in a simple statement of fact??? President Bush did try to to address the problem, but Republicans and Democrats (led by a Democrat Congress) would have nothing to do with any type of reform. Think about it - Congress wrote a law that required banks to count UNEMPLOYMENT benefits as income. Even you must see the insanity in that mandate. Why would someone who is unemployed be a good credit risk for a house - or any other - loan?!? Unless they have other, significant assets, people who don't have a job have no business getting a house loan. But they did - and the result - especially in a down economy - was foreclosure and a loss of wealth. Other than the fact that Congress is political, the outcome of loss of wealth from foreclosure, or the loss of value of the homes, is neither conservative or liberal.

Additionally, since minorities have more of their wealth assets in their homes, it's not a surprise that the new statistical data would reflect that negative more disproportionately on minorities. Again, that's not conservative or liberal either.

I happen to believe that the Community Reinvestment Act, supported by Rs and Ds, is a major contributor to the foreclosure crisis. It was 'supposed' to help more people have a home, but in trying to make it easier, the program actually set people up for future default by encouraging many who really couldn't afford such a financial commitment to have one. And then, to make matters worse, Congress then used other people's money (tax dollars) to bail out many of these people. Of course members of Congress wanted to 'save' them - they're the ones who tossed them under the bus (so to speak) in the first place.

Now, you can agree or disagree with whether or not this is the proper role of government (and my guess is that you'll disagree - lol). But you cannot dispute the facts that the program did not work as intended and actually contributed to the problem. (My sarcastic comment at this point would be - what a surprise! a government program that didn't work as intended and ended up making things worse due to unanticipated consequences.)

So, are you saying the facts aren't correct?

As I've said previously - there's much more to the issue of weath disparity than 'blame the rich.'

I found the article you referenced an insult to my intelligence. While I get the Rushs and Becks of the world blaming the financial problem on the big bad government using Fannie, Freddie and the community reinvestment act to force poor innocent banks to loan money to the unwashed masses. I felt you were above that completely inaccurate assessment.

Let's begin...
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/com...

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.
...
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses

The entire thing is a good read. But wait there's more!

http://www.businessinsider.com/fannie-freddie-karl-smith-2010-9

Turns out Fannie and Freddy were late to the party...
during the boom not only did the fraction of loans securitized by Fannie and Freddie fall, but the absolute number fell. At the same time the absolute number of private-label securitizations rose.

There is a simple and obvious reason for this. The development of structured products meant that for many consumers the free market offered a more attractive loan than the government subsidized one.

Lastly, "Bush really want to stop it, but mean old Democrats stopped him"...they really like to blame Frank here for stopping Fannie and Freddy oversite back in 2003 and 2004...who controlled congress back then?

Way to go. Attacking Maggie's intelligence. I don't think that is deserved as she never even remotely done anything like that in all I've read here. Argue the merits with with thoughtful discussion.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.