Look Who's Lying Again

I really liked what he had to say (yes he did put the blame where it truly belongs) and lets hope he can deliver, despite the TP lies.

You repubs are just going to have to learn that the wealthy are going to have to start paying and not hoarding, or the US will be paying China to cut the lawn at the White House.

The wealthy don't hoard...they invest. There is a large and important difference between these two actions. The sooner the anti-wealthy understand this, the better off we'll all be.

The second point is this:

The top 1% of all income earners pay 38% of all income taxes and garner about 22% of the national income.
The top 5% of all income earners pay 59% of all income taxes and garner about 35% of the national income.
The top 10% of all income earners pay 70% of all income taxes and garner about 48% of the national income.
The top 25% of all income earners pay 86% of all income taxes and garner about 67% of the national income.
The top 50% of all income earners pay 97% of all income taxes and garner about 87% of the national income.

There's an old saying : " The rich didn't get rich by spending their money ".

That is correct. They got rich by investing their money.

In fact it's a bit more than that: The rich get rich by saving...by consuming less than they produce. This is, arguably, one reasonable definition of being wealthy*. At the very least it is the starting point toward wealth. On the other hand, those who are poor tend to consume more than they produce. The savings that results from forgoing current consumption and consuming less than you produce becomes investment capital...which enables you to (possibly) grow wealthier.

*In fact, if you asked me to give you my personal, objective definition of material wealth it would be: "Someone whose personal balance sheet shows they are consuming (spending) less than they are producing (income)." There might be some other factors to include such as asset ownership and debt-to-income ratio. But, the point is, it would be strictly about some arbitrary amount of money (million, billion, etc.)...that all relative.

Funny. I could have sworn I just said that. Just looking at it from the other end.

You sorta did. I just expanded on it and provided more detail.

The money is still in their pocket.

Actually...it's not. It is invested (directly or indirectly.) That's the real point. The money accumulated isn't stuffed in a mattress somewhere...it is invested out in the world. All they own is title to it.

So they can profit from it. Usually more than they invested. Hence the profit. So in the end the money in their pocket increases.

Yes. Exactly. The profit (if it materializes and it doesn't always) is their reward for a) deferring their own consumption, and b) risking their money.

So in summary the rich don't get rich by spending their money. A big improvment on a mattress I'd say.

Ooh you are struggling.

The Forbes 400 pay an average of just 17% of their income in taxes, go figure.

So how much of a share of the following categories do people own-


Top 1% (3,080,000 Americans) and the poorest 90% (277 million Americans) in 2007

Business equity~ 62.4% versus 6.7%
Financial securities~\t60.6% versus 1.5%
Trusts~ 38.9% versus 20.6%
Stocks and mutual funds~\t38.3% versus 18.8%
Non-home real estate~ 28.3% versus 23.1%
TOTAL investment assets~ 49.7%\t versus 12.2%

I am? How so?



You're starting to get to the root of the problem. The rich own assets, that's what makes them rich. The poor don't, that's what makes them poor.

The real question is what is the pathway from poverty to wealth is.

Obama's speech was excellent, thank God, or I'd have no faith left in America's future. The whole thing here- http://www.c-span.org/Events/Preside...10737420836-1/

Cutting taxes is not spending, but it is adding to the deficit. Same result. Try cutting the amount your employer or clients pay you and tell me it isn't the cause of any new financial problems that might be a result.

We're polls apart on taxes and I don't see that changing. Obama's speech pretty much summed up how I feel, with his disgust at repub policies on reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans whilst there income skyrockets. The discrepancy in the amounts of tax people pay being focused from top to bottom of the wealth scale should be a good indicator to you just how much wealth the highest earners make. If someone has an income of $100 million it ain't no shit to them if they pay $17 million in taxes. If someone has a family of four and earns $20,000, every penny they pay in taxes matter.

The level of flat out hostility towards any mention of raising taxes on the rich is utterly absurd. Snarky and over the top remarks of "just take all their money" is really quite offensive given their incredible wealth and the incredible pace of growth of that wealth, whilst so many truly struggle, strive and sweat what might be. It's America though, it's like that, and unfortunately it's not going away anytime soon.

I am not claiming zero sum results.

• The economy was stimulated.

Let's assume that the tax cuts did stimulate the economy. I'm not agreeing that they did, I'm just saying let's assume.

• The rich got richer.

The "stimulated economy" served to enrich the rich. Congratulations.

• Poverty has not been reduced.

That is a quote from the right wing, and it is true. The proponents of supply-side economics claim that if we take less from the rich and from corporations, then they will hire and retain people, reducing unemployment. That's not what happened. This theory is bunk. In a downward economy, rich people keep their gains. It's smart business. Unfortunately, it does nothing to reverse the economic trend.

• The deficit got worse.

I don't think there's any debate about that.

So... assuming that the reason the economy was stimulated was (partially) due to the tax cuts, what we got is this:

Richer rich people. Poor people stayed the same, at best. The deficit got worse.

So what the FUCK is the benefit, to anybody but the rich?

What I'm saying is that there is more than one way to stimulate the economy. There IS a way to stimulate the economy that does benefit the poor and middle class, and that does not hit the deficit as hard.

Supply-side has failed, once again, to help anyone but the rich. It's time to try other tactics.

No, it is not a fact.

I'm tired of talking with people that don't know what the fuck they're talking about and prattle on like they do.

The funny thing is, I support a balanced budget amendment as well. But I also support rules, to go with it, that stipulate a constant stream of revenue. No tax cuts until you can afford it. If taxes aren't enough, they can be raised.

Once we get to where we can afford tax cuts, cool, knock yourself out. Cut taxes. But don't put the cart before the horse.

Oh, so we've had employment gains and base income gains in the last 30 years to match the "economic growth"? We've had a reduction in poverty?

No, we haven't. I'm tired of talking with people living in denial, who have NO understanding about the struggles of the poor and middle class.

All you guys ever talk about is "revenue". You never even look at the working class.

From Obama's speech today talking about the repub plan-

"Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% (*effectively 277 million American's) of all working Americans actually declined."
~ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...n-the-deficit/

*my edit

It was an excellent speech, so here's more-

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know."

and-

A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

and-

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

I've taken out this line from my post, as it was a bit too subjective. Now reread my post, and it shows the exact same conclusion:

• The economy was stimulated.
• The rich got richer.
• Poverty has not been reduced.
• The deficit got worse.

So what do you suggest we do about that? No changes in the approach? More of the same? Double down on the "trickle-down" bet? Now that would be an insanely stupid thing to do.

The poorest 40% of American's, that's about 123 million American's, own just 0.3% of America's wealth. That what you get for being lazy and if the repubs and TP get their way I'm sure they'll try and get it down to 0.2%.

So again, let's revisit the title of this thread:

Look who's lying again.

It's clear. The people who say that giving more money to the rich -- nay -- letting the rich keep more of their money -- will necessarily benefit the poor and middle class -- a tactic that we've seen argued and tried for the last thirty years without results -- are lying. Again.

Of course, the rich people who argue this are indeed getting richer... so it's all good. (*wink*, *wink*)

The rich know how to avoid taxes. Spiking the tax rate doesn't mean a flood of cash will show up in the treasury.

So what you are saying is the rich are unpatriotic. America could become solvent if a combination of increased revenue and decreased spending were implemented. But if you assert that the rich care more about dodging taxes than helping the country become fiscally sound and avoid another worse crash...well, sounds like some borderline treasonous action to me.

Neither does cutting their taxes even further or keeping it at the cut rate mean that a flood of new jobs will be created.

They can afford it.What do the wealthy invest in?

To put in a microcosmic fashion if you get less pay and pay less on your credit card debt the amount owed doesn't decrease as fast and actually can increase due to interest. Not exactly an across the board comparison ( because this is deficit not just a debt ) to be fair but pretty similar and can lead to more debt. Which could be one of the new financial problems you're talking about.

Whatever they're "investing" in, it's not creating jobs. That claim is a lie.

They're investing in moving money around in circles between rich people. That's it.

WHy not pay China? I mean the entire U.S. has wealth disproportionate to the rest of the world so per your reasoning, even the poorest of the poor have exploited someone else and thus should give up what they have.


You make it sound like a magic trick that only certain people can do. If you know how to do then then failure to apply that information isn't the fault of those who do apply it.


Consumption and investment aren't the same thing. You've had it explained but clearly prefer word games.


It's a question where the answer is well-known. The answer becomes very obscured though for those who believe wealth is an accident, and thus a function of luck and instead of creating it, they spend all their time fixating on how to redistribute it.


It must be nice to live in a bizarro world where the man with the peace prize keeps starting wars and the world has so much faith in our future that they are meeting to move away from the dollar.


It need not result in any new financial problems at all. People regularly trade other lifestyle choices for money and as long as they keep their spending in line, all is fine.

Now reverse it as well. Go tell your boss or your clients that you need to charge them all more, not because the cost of the service provided has gone up or the market will bare more, but simply because you spend too much and decided they should take the hit.


It isn't fair to assign blame to only the Republicans. The Democrats held the Congress for 4 years. They could have revisited and revise the tax code any time they chose to do so. They clearly choose not to do so. They lost the House and even while still controlling the Senate Obama and the current Democratic controlled Senate agreed to extend the rates established by Bush during the remaineder of the lame duck term.

Why don't you ask the person earning an income of $100 million if they really don't give a shit about the $17 million. It is clear they do. More interesting it is clear that valuing the $17 million is part of what helped them earn the $100 million. Meanwhile the person who earned $20,000 pays no taxes except for Social Security. They clearly have enough deductions even with just a personal deduction to get it all back. Often they also receive tax "credits" that they didn't pay like Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit that pay them $3-8000 of income they never even earned.


What is absurd is to declare it isn't a spending problem when growth of government spenidng and all industries associated with outpace the rate of inflation and have for decades.


It wasn't stimulated. There hasn't been a single benchmark or goal met that was claimed for the stimulus. The most disgusting part is we could have at least upgraded our infrastructure. Instead we have crumbling bridges while promoting a high speed rail. It is absurd.


Income taxe rates might not be at a rate which hinder the economy. Most of the issue now is about "uncertainty" which I've posted here about. When you have a government that ignores the rule of law, engages in cronism and makes no sense, people won't invest. The health care plan and massive waviers exempting people who apparently donate enough to the cause are a huge part of the problem right now.


Can you prove this statement? Can you prove that in the largest recession since the depression with massive wealth destroyed that none of it was absorbed by the top 10% relative to the bottom say 50%?


Please prove this point. Please prove that under a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President that 3 trillion+ dollars was borrowed and just handed over to the rich for free.


Nor will it when massive wealth has been destroyed in a recessionary contract and the government piles on by refusing to let the economy rebalance itself.


If you consider anything about the current economic downturn to have been handled by marketforces then you are delusional. The government has been involved with everything and has manipulated everything. There are rebates for all things green, for buying certain cars, for buying a house, for all manner of activity. That isn't the market at work. That is the government at work and they have gone and are further going broke proving it doesn't work.


The deficit got worse while the government was "investing" and "stimulating" with supposedly a massive multiplier effect that would thus fix the lack of growth. We had a $13 trillion dollar economy that shrank a few trillion. The government borrowed the difference, allocated it how it saw fit to bring growth and that money at a 1.5-1.6 multiplier was supposed to plug and grow the gap. It has done nothing of the sort. Now we have to pay off even more debt with a smaller economy and the things that might have been done with that money are still not done. Worse still Obama wants to double down on the bad policy.


If the rich got richer, especially if they just pocketed the money per your reasoning, wouldn't the size of the economy be proportionally larger now?

The stimulus didn't create jobs. It didn't create anything. It has been used as income redistribution which was consumed and now, like all consumption, it is gone.


There is only one way to grow the economy. Investment and savings. We do very little of each as a nation and tax the crap out of it when we do. We tax your interest on your savings. We tax your dividend and return on your stocks. Even at the low rate of 15% how is that beneficial? The Fed rate is .25%. The bank might give you 1.5% on your savings account if you are lucky. You take a $1000 dollars and save it for a year. You get $15 in return for that and of that $15 the government demands income tax on it of minimum 15%. You in your head already probably decided it wasn't worth it when earning the $15 but you take that and reduce that amount to $12.75 due to taxes and now it is even less worth it.

For that sort of return you might as well throw it on the craps table. You might as well buy lottery tickets. You might as well shit in a can and see if something grows. This is the nature of our true economy as well. The easiest dollars to pursue are speculative stock plays, currency carry trades, or trying to get money from the government by lobbying them aka crony capitalism. The real economy doesn't exist due to the obviously not independent fed largely destroying the currency that would be used to conduct it.


Try again.


I support my employer paying me more until I desire to fix my spending problem.


We've absolutely had massive gains in employment and reduction of poverty. Thus liberals have had to move the goalpost by creating the concept of relative poverty. The poor in the U.S. often have dishwashers, air conditioners, subscription television and cell phones. Thus "poverty" becomes having a PS1 instead of a PS3 or having a 33 inch standard definition television instead of a 55 inch high definition television. Poverty becomes having to eat at McDonalds instead of being organic veggies and grass fed beef.


I'm sure a government that keeps them dependent and hands them fish instead of ever telling them it might be nice to purchase a fishing pole will absolutely get it down to that number.


Since when is keeping what you've earned the same as someone "giving" it to you? Tonton I'm going to go to your home and take all your possesions. You can't be upset with me because I was only letting you keep them in the first place since I "gave" them to you by letting you purchase and keep them. Since they aren't really yours, but societies, they are really mine to do with as I desire due to my intentions being better than yours per my own reasoning of course.


BR, clearly if or when someone steals items from your home it is simply because they are trying to improve your patriotism. They were just helping themselves to what you have that they do not. Perhaps you could even PM us your address and we could all make sure you are being patriotic enough.


The biggest thing that would improve employment right now is simplifying the tax code and removing the uncertainty related to government entitlements and the obligations related to paying them.


The wealthy invest in items that bring a return. Who wouldn't?

Explain exactly how this makes more money?

I thought I would give AI PO a few week rest.

But I had to respond to this..

Lets look at Detroit Michigan.

Do you feel that the reason Detroit is in ruins today is because of a lack of unions (which you must believe protects the working / middle class)

Is the fact that Detroit is in ruins today because there was not enough welfare?

Perhaps not enough "Big Government"

In other words if Detroit only had "MORE UNIONS" "MORE BIG GOVERNMENT and and"MORE WELFARE" would it not have collapsed into the ruin that it now is?


Where is the evidence that Big Government, Unions and Welfare raise a society up?

Because when I look at areas where these things have been most used we see decay at every level.

On the other hand take a very conservative state like say "Utah"...

Find me one city in decay like Detroit is.

Take a look at the decay: http://blog.hgtv.com/design/2011/02/...ses-buildings/

Better yet watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw

Fellows

As usual you don't see the side of the barn. Not only does the money not " Trickle down " as the mistaken ( and pretty much disproven ) theory states. It's much worse than a drip coffee maker. However I understand now why you wouldn't see that.

Now you understand my perspective. And why I don't post here much anymore. I really don't have anything against people making money or even getting rich. However the actual situation is way beyond that and needs serious revision. 2008 was proof of that.

I refer you to post #36 in this thread.

Fellows

And? Is there more to your point or is that all? I'm home sick today and actually have time for this shit.