400 richest Americans' incomes doubled under Bush

Well and that's why the fight so HARD for it. Tax cuts, tax cuts, TAX CUTS!!! This will make me, rich, rich, RICH!!!

SELFISH!

The guy who digs a ditch pays more of his income to the government than the guy who owns the ditch digging company.

Yeah he sure does. LOL. Not to sound mean but that is the reality with my parent's company.

Actually if I read this correctly, not only did incomes double in 6 years (that is a 16% per year rise in income), but the marginal tax rate they paid on it declined as well to 17% (and thats on the income they actually declared since capital gains are notoriously hard to "find"). To put this in prespective, the average American earns about 15% more than they did in 2000. They pay 35% in taxes.

For you history buffs, the only income tax permited under the constitution is the capital gains tax. The 16th amendment allowed direct taxation of wages which was actually illegal under the constitution. The huge cuts to the capital gains tax and estate taxes have resulted in massive tax breaks for the rich. The problem is that these tax cuts don't make any sense. Why should tax on "profit" be less than tax on wages. There really isn't any good reason other than it preys on an electorate who is naive and unsophisticated (like Joe the Plumber).

The solution is an immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts on capital gains, the introduction of a surtax on wealth individuals (incomes of more than 500k) and a super tax braket for incomes over 1 million that collects 60% tax on this income with an Alternative minimum tax on gross incomes over 1 Million of 50% regardless of deductions and source. These changes would likely erase much of the deficit immediately and resume a progressive tax structure which was derailed 25 years ago.

Hmm, sounds like a lot of money going to government...geez, I could probably hire my own couple of deputies after the redistribution!

The guy who digs a ditch pays more of his income to the government than the guy who owns the ditch digging company

Absolutely false. The ditch digger makes at best $8 an hour. That comes to about $16,500. His taxable income is less than $7,000. At most, he paid $700 in taxes. That's about 4%. That is much less than what the owner of the company paid! If you want to own your own company, start a business.

The huge cuts to the capital gains tax and estate taxes have resulted in massive tax breaks for the rich

It benefited everyone. Mr. economist, what is the capital gains rate for investors in the bottom two tax brackets? It is just 5%! That is 1/3 of what the "rich" pay. While we are at it, what happens when people invest? Can you help us out, Mr. Economist? They provide capital to American companies, correct? If the capital gains rate was set the same as the income tax rate, investment would be stifled. When the capital gains tax was raised, investment dropped, and so did tax revenue! When the rate was lowered, tax revenue went up! So did investment! I was in the bottom tax bracket, and had to sell stock to make ends meet when I was laid off. Thank goodness the rate is just 5%! That saved me quite a bit of money!

The solution is an immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts on capital gains, the introduction of a surtax on wealth individuals (incomes of more than 500k) and a super tax braket for incomes over 1 million that collects 60% tax on this income with an Alternative minimum tax on gross incomes over 1 Million of 50% regardless of deductions and source. These changes would likely erase much of the deficit immediately and resume a progressive tax structure which was derailed 25 years ago

Mr. Economist, the Bush tax cuts cut rates for everyone. Everybody paid less. Do you want to pay more so Pelosi can spend your money?

Why do you want to punish someone for their success? How about asking our elected officials to do a better job of spending your money? How about reducing the deficit by reducing wasteful spending? Mr. Economist, or you a Keynesian? Why do you trust people like Chris Dodd, or Nancy Pelosi?

Why do you want to punish someone for their success

Really? You think they are being 'punished'? I think they are getting away with highway robbery for paying everyone else in their company less than a quarter of what they make and then swimming in money they didn't earn.

You think Rush Limbaugh is really being punished by his 400million dollar contract because he has to pay half of that in taxes? Really 200 million dollars isn't enough for one person for one entire lifetime, especially when most American struggle to pay to LIVE much less get the necessities of life?

Get some perspective.

brkfstclblvr

Get some perspective.

Rush isn't the man or woman on the street. When you have to struggle for a living you'll have some perspective. Till then your life on the gravy train will do.

Have a great day!

AV - no your math is faulty. The business owner has all those nice deductions - it is far more likely that he will (on paper) have made little profit; worse the last year (2008) he likely had a tax-loss

Your notion that people in the lowest tax brackets actually had capital gains (or even had stocks from which they could earn capital gaisn) is ridiculous, you are being disengenuous at best, outright lying more likely (or maybe you just have no idea how silly you sound - someone earning 20K a year owning stock!)

"If the capital gains rate was set the same as the income tax rate, investment would be stifled." so you are saying we keep capital gains rate low so that income is stifled? This is a lose - lose argument, capital gains are income and should be ttreated as such - the same as any other income. Investment stifled? Where do you think that money is going to go? As long as it earns more than inflation it will be better to invest than not; this IS a ripoff

"When the capital gains tax was raised, investment dropped, and so did tax revenue!" - FALSE! Investment did not drop nor did tax revenue drop - this uis fiction; the conservative religion of economics and not backed by facts.

"Why do you want to punish someone for their success?" - Spin, the idea behind progressive tax rates is that those who can afford to pay more have had more benefits from our governkment (roads, police, etc.) and should pay more

"How about reducing the deficit by reducing wasteful spending?" - define wasteful spending. Maybe government shouldn't pave roads to your factory, connect it to water and sewage lines, fight fires or send police to protect property, build schools so your workers can read hazard signs, etc. etc.

(parenthetically, Robert Heinlein once said the best way to reduce pollution is to require plabts to take water in downstream from their own polluted outflows)

Why do People trust Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi? Because as politicians their job is to get the economy moving, get people jobs, get business moving again so their voters are happy and re-elect them. They have a far better grasp on economics than the rabid right wing talking points you espouse with absolutely no basis in economics or reality

Rickace - yes, you need to get some perspective. Where did you get the idea that brkfstclblvr is on some gravy train? Real people struggling for a living understand when working incomes actually declined over the past 8 years but the richest people's incomes more than doubled that there is something seriously wrong with the system - it doesn't reward workers for their work.

FALSE! Investment did not drop nor did tax revenue drop

WRong my friend. Please show me where you got this information.

define wasteful spending. Maybe government shouldn't pave roads to your factory, connect it to water and sewage lines, fight fires or send police to protect property, build schools so your workers can read hazard signs

You know paving roads is not what I am talking about. Or, is it. A construction company is hired to build 10 miles of road. They are 250% over budget, and the project is 3 years past due.

Have you looked at the federal budget? Spending has tripled in 8 years. It tripled the 8 years before that. That is the pure definiation of waste. Maybe you want government running your life. I don't. Have you looked at this spending package? It is full of waste. Government was to spend only what is necessary, no more.

on economics than the rabid right wing talking points you espouse with absolutely no basis in economics or reality

I have earned an advanced degree in business and I work in finance. I am much more qualified than a couple of two bit lawyers who sell snake oil. They have no clue, and the fact that you defend these irresponsible idiots is reprehensible. In fact, if you have a pet it knows more about the economy than Nancy Pelosi.

They pay more than you can fathom. Example one made $568,000 last year. He paid nearly $120,000 in federal taxes. That was with some very smart investments. Example 2 is a small business owner. His HVAC company made $951,000 last year. He has 8 employees. His business paid nearly $200,000 in taxes last year.

Two years ago I was downsized, and I made less than $20,000. I still managed to invest each month. In fact, I made nearly $12,000 in capital gains. Just because you don't have money doesn't mean you can't invest. Last year I made a just a little bit more, and managed to invest. There are many people in the bottom brackets who invest. You choose what you make in life.

Your 401k is under your control. You can allocate money any way you want. You can eliminate much of your risk. You must be proactive.

Spin, the idea behind progressive tax rates is that those who can afford to pay more have had more benefits from our governkment (roads, police, etc.) and should pay more

This is my favorite. We all drive on the same roads. They pay much more in taxes than you or I do. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have roads.

I am disappointed to see so many people with this attitude of victimization. We all get to make our own choices that determine our level of success. Yeah, there are a few rich people who buck the system. There are a few others who are jerks. For the most part, however, they are great people who have earned their way in life. I love you you think successful people were just handed success. 93% of millionaires in America earned their way.

The quicker you learn that democrats don't care about you for more than your vote, the better you will be. They want to give you things. They want to hold you down and make you dependent on them.

Benjamin Franklin said the quickest way to make keep a person poor is to give them means to survive without having to earn it. I am struggling right now to build my own business. It is not easy, and every day is a struggle. Don't believe everything you read in the media. Sure, some people got richer. But, we had 700,000 new millionaires as well. That means they were not millionaires before.

If you want to change your life, then do something to make it better. Stop accusing someone of not earning what they have achieved. You are clueless with how hard successful people work. That is why they are successful! And, they aren't out to screw you. Get that through your head and you will go a lot farther in life.

Eriq,

I am going to revise my response slightly. I understand your position. There is a lot of greed. We need the SEC to actually police Wall Street and we need some enforcement. We need to regulate credit swaps. That is a must.

I agree that many CEO's are greedy $&*$&(. I could use more foul language... I get pissed off when a CEO lays off 2,000 workers, then takes a huge bonus. I hate when they sign a contract to make $100 million a year. Why? Especially when they are going to run the company into the ground. That needs to change, but not with government regulation. The government's job is not to regulate pay. That is personal responsibility.

My issue is that most business owners, 95%, are great people who are trying to make ends meet. They have cut their own pay rather than laying people off. It is the 5% that are in the news that give everyone a bad name.

Most who work for wall street firms do not live in new york city. They live in towns like paducah, and millersville, and lincoln, and des moines. They make a living trying to help folks like you and I. Let's not lump them into the filth on wall street. The problem on wall street is the fact that the top cats are all wired in with our politicians. They have corrupted a wonderful system. They should all go to jail. People who enabled them in congress should go to jail as well. There was a bill introduced in 2007 by Charles Rangel and Chuck Grassley that would have taxed hedge fund managers at regular income rates. It was defeated by Harry Reid, who locked it in committee. WHY? The lobbyists came out and wined and dined he and other committee members. They made campaign contributions and the bill was killed. I, for one, think the bill should have been heard.

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with you in more ways than it might seem. I apologize if I came off a little strong. We need to get rid of the greed on wall street, in our business world, and in congress.

Rush isn't the man or woman on the street. When you have to struggle for a living you'll have some perspective. Till then your life on the gravy train will do.

What? You don't think I struggle for a living? I am a college professor and I struggle for a living.

And you're right, Rush isn't the man on the street, he's the a-hole who thinks he knows a damn thing about economics.

brkfstclblvr

What? You don't think I struggle for a living? I am a college professor and I struggle for a living.

You have a job. Perhaps when you lose it you will understand what struggling means.

And you're right, Rush isn't the man on the street, he's the a-hole who thinks he knows a damn thing about economics.

Rush is the a-hole? Really now? I'd say that title belongs to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Secretary of Tax Evasion Timothy Geithner. Oh and also President Obama who's busy in the kitchen preparing Crap Sandwich V2.0 to serve at Porkfest 2009.

Rush has no statutory authority to @!$%# the nation over with harebrained, epic fiscal miscues. The others do. Big difference.

Just for Rush,YouTube - The @!$%# Song By Jimmy Buffett

Crap Sandwich V2.0

I have to remember this one...!

America's Voice,

Minor tax cuts for average Americans did not make a major differance in people's lives. The Bush tax cuts, combined with his half witted "War on Terror" have not only bankrupted the country, but the banks as well. The only beneficiaries of this meass are the top 1% who have seen their wealth grow over this period. Most of us are a lot worse off than we were in 2000. We are just beginning to figure out how much damage was done by this era .... and anyone who thinks thatthe Bush era has been given a false billing is likely dillusional.

This is not to Say that Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan are free of blame either. They followed the same trickle down, laissez faire model that clearly doesn't work long past its expiry - Bush Jr. was just sitting their when the inspectors came to check the dates!

As for your assertion that this somehow worked, lets look at the data, these characters have doubled their annual income from $130 Million to $260 Million in 6 years. At the same time, they reduced the taxes paid on that income to 17% from what was likely close to 30%. That is a net "after tax" increase of close to 200% in six years!!!! Thats an annual raise in "net take home pay" of 33% PER YEAR!

Finally, the vast majority of this income is in Capital Gains. This is not income derived from WORKING, but from investing. Most of these guys are not earning stock options as employees, but more likely as directors. So how is rewarding these guys with huge tax breaks helping the rest of us. I iknow that my income isn't rising at 33% per year - is yours? Doe you make $1 Million or more a year?

If you answered NO to either of those questions - Then WHY in GOD'S NAME DO YOU SUPPORT THIS RIDICULOUS POLICY?

jbdaad

Thanks for tunes from the Lone Star State. Props to Texans from this Yankee who loves to sing in harmony.

Why am I surprised that they only doubled? I would have thought more like 10x.

It only doubled because there's only so much they can bleed out of everyone else before there's nothing left to take. After so many decades of this going on we have either nearly reached that point or have gotten there already.

Merle - first of all, this is what was actually reported as income. Most of these jokers have a number of tax avoidance procedures (Trusts, offshore corps, shelters, losses, etc ...) and often "forget" to declare perks and other benefits as income. So likely this is only a portion of the "haul" under Bush ....

I agree. The only reason that this latest "boom" was even that was because of the credit market. There has been no real increase (and actually a decrease, when adjusted for inflation) in wages since 2000. Once the credit market dried up, people were left with massive amounts of debt, and less income to pay it back with. Each time they say that GDP has decreased and that consumers are buying less, it's like, duuuuh, really? Thats what happens when there is no income and no CREDIT to buy junk with. We are thus left with hopefully having enough in our paychecks to pay the bills and if we're lucky, treat ourselves to a dinner out, but not much else. What the hell did everyone think would happen when the credit market finally crumbled?

You want to fix this mess, increase wages. That is why they are saying the first "stimulus" checks did actually help a little bit. But it just wasn't enough. Smaller bonuses for the CEO's and higher wages for the people that produce is what is needed.

Med,

There are 2 ways to unwind the mess we are in - both involve the richest actuall "contributing" to this country again.

1. Wages rise to come in line with debt loads. We have seen Debt ratios get way out of whack for decades now. The solution proposed by the Politicos is to "get banks lending again" - ie. more debt. If this actually works, they will need to increase interest rates rapidly, and put even more pressure on the broken consumer. The solution is a reduction of profits and an increase in wages. Debt can and should stay the same, and wages rise back to some osrt of equilibrium with debt. (NOT LIKELY THOUGH!!!)

2. We continue along as we've gone so far, the legions of unemployed and bankrupt become a political force in 2010, and Congress forces a new paradigm for credit law - debts are written down to a fraction, bankers, businesses and rich people are stuck holding the bag for a lot of bad uncollectable debt. We reach an equilibrium with lower wages and lower debt. (MORE LIKELY SCENARIO).

Regardless, the days of the trickle down experiment are closing fast. The credit scam and housing bubble have left a lot of people in a bad place, and as this group grows, so does political will to get something from the corporate aristocracy who've had a free ride here .... Can't come soon enough

Bailout of citizens...yes, I think the Obama plan includes some payroll tax cuts, doesn't it? This is a nice tax cut, I'm waiting for mine!

Like most upper level politicians Bush may not have gotten personally richer as they consider power to be more important than money. If he made the 400 richer he had 400 people in his pocket.

And I suppose the Congressional Democrats and individuals being assembled for Obama's administration did not benefit/profit from the Bush administraions economic policies? The good ole boy system is not a strictly Republican phenomenon.

A cursory look into Hillary Clinton's portfolio from the time her husband took office until the time they vacated for "W" is quite telling. In the two terms she took one plan from $1 million to $50 million (8 years). Not bad huh? Would it surprise you that one element of the pork she brought home to New York as a Senator was Federal grants to Financial Investment firms. You would think that this was to benefit relatively small brokerages and firms. Goldman Sachs got the lion's share. Guess who was one of her biggest campaign donors? If you folks actually believe that these profits are made without insider information, I've got some swamp land in the Gobi Desert for sale. The SEC has proven itself to be as crooked as the rest of the government, although they do a great job of pretending that they are merely incompetent.

They don't have swamps in the Gobi desert. I wasn't born yesterday.

Yeah that 40/1 Net Capital Rule was a pretty good one - but there again just like Greenspan said business can self-regulate - it's in their own self interest

Alrhough I think Greenspan fogot about pirates in $3000 suits.

Merle- supposedly the tax cuts for the wealthy made it possible for them to reinvest in the good old USA. Did they reinvest? I hope so. The middle and lower class certainly helped kill the economy by living on home equity loans and plastic and not saving. Regretfully, a difficult thing to do when raising a family on the poor wages we receive. It is so easy to blame and become emotional with this mess.
Bush did not need money. yes, but the Bush's social connections loved this boon. A right once won is rarely given back. Obama sits on the edge of the bed and talks a good line, but the temptation to please the rich might be too great. I believe he wants to do the right thing, but perhaps he crosses over. I still say the love of money is the root of all evil. One things we can be sure of, history repeats itself. thanks for the post.

This isn't about parties, its about an ideology. We were sold a false bill of goods in the 80's about how the rich are smarter, more productive and would use the money more effectively than the rest of us. We give them more money, and the benefits of "investments" trickle down to the rest of us. Predominantly, they invested the money in Mortgages and foreign factories. They made alot of money with that plan. The best part was that for the last 18 years it was the middle class "consumer" who is still taxed to death, makes about the same as they did 8 years ago, who "carried" the economy. Now we are told we need to stimulate the middle class to start spending again, even the working poor - that is the road to recovery according to the experts. But Bush et al broke the bank with the Tarp Welfare for the Rich program .... Trillions thrown away for absolutely nothing!

The simple truth is that tirckle down economics never worked, never made any sense (except to those at the very top) and failed in or about 5 years in. We continued these failed policies despite all evidence that it didn't work for another 20 years under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and W.. W. is taking the blame, but it was pretty clear in 1989 that it didn't work - so why keep doing it?

Angela593: Agreed. This whole crisis we are in is about greed; more for me and f#%k you. What is also disheartening is the fact that Obama trying to vet out his cabinet positions, and already three of the nominees have had questionable tax issues. Just goes to show you that there is plenty of dirt in Washington. How does one pick someone clean out of the dirt? While I believe Obama has the right ideas....it will be difficult for him not to get any dirt on his hands since he is sitting in a sewer....ah...I mean Washington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/bank-of-america-hosted-an_n_161248.html

Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top legislative priority.

I hate BoA. They are turning into the monopoly bank. When they say Bank of America, it is not just a name, it is literal.

There is a cruel joke in that name...

Banker + gangster = bankster

There was a Bank of America (based in San Francisco - a descendant of the Bank of Italy of S F - it was primarily retail banking and little corporate banking) that was bought by Nation's Bank which had such bad service, so ruined their own reputation that in the purchase they changed their name to the Bank they bought - hence the new Bank of America (note that the change did not involve any policy or structural changes.

While we appreciate you input Derek. If you are not American, we don't care about your opinion.

I think it was stated earlier on this post, this is hardly a Rebub issue. Look at the list of the "richest", it is loaded with Registered Dems. Whether taxes are raised or lowered, their income will always increase, because they actually own things. While the so-called middle class doesn't own anything. Rather we lease through credit.

For example, you make 100k a year and you own a 300k house. Once that is paid off, your net work has just increased 3 fold. However, middle class leverages that potential value by expanded their credit lines. Thus, the actual potential of net worth is expotentially reduced.

This is thread is totally misleading and shouldn't be a surpise to anyone. If it is, open a history book and read about any civilization.

Derek -

While scat seems to think that he/she speaks for everyone - he/she doesn't speak for me. If you have an opinion - I'd like to hear it. I don't care if you're an American or not - we could use help from anyone.

The only trickling down I seen during the Bush administration was in reference to his popularity.

The golden shower of our rich on their subjects. Proceeds relative to to darkness of tint on the end of nose.

In response, how could Derek who is not a citizen (or says he is not) comment on whether trickle down economies worked or isn't working.

While everyone is entitled to opinion, and I am giving you mine, as an outsider who IS NOT EXPERIENCING IT, how can a comment be posted.

Rather, his post should have read "I have been told.... or read....". Instead his post implies that he is part of the system, which he is not. Thus, to post a statement like that is erroneous from it's conception.

his post should have read "I have been told.... or read....". Instead his post implies that he is part of the system, which he is not

The only trickling down I seen during the Bush administration was in reference to his popularity

He never said he experienced it. You don't need to directly experience something to be able to make observations.

but he never stated he observed, which is a form of experiencing. How can he observe if he is not in this country. What read news papers or watch TV? Observation is placing yourself in a setting and not interfering with the normal progression of that setting.

If he travels within the country or has dealings with a wide array of people in different socio-economic classes, then and I am fine with the statement.

His statement implies that he is experiencing it. " The only trickling down I have seen..." is his statement. Which clearly indicates he is implying first hand experience.

scat, I observe what's going on in other countries by reading and watching a myriad of news sources. And what do you think the verb to see (The only trickling down I seen...) means? To observe. Experiencing something first-hand is not a requirement of observation. I can watch someone die of a gunshot wound and then give my observations on what happened without having to experience getting shot. You're being silly.

No my aurgument isn't silly and it really isn't about Derek's post.

I challenge your statement that you observe anything going on in other countries. Rather, certain information is presented to you and then you make you opinion based on that limited information.

For one to observe, you are on site and taking in all facets of the experience; then recording ALL happenings. That my friend is observation.

And after the gunshot, you do not give observations. Rather, you would give your finite visual experience of what happened in that particular time frame. Observation of that situation would encompass all happenings in that particular environment, which may have happened to include a gunshot.

The point of all this, everyone has opinions, but don't portray one's opinion as fact. Especially if you are not experiencing. Most everyone posting opinions pro/con are actually experiencing what is going on. Granted most of their experiences may be limited due to direct personal effect.

But to sit on the outside and comment is foolish.That is like me posting the Queen of England is evil, because I watched that movie about Princess Di's death.

I congratulate you on gather as much info on all things. I do the same. Hopefully, you realize that somewhere in the middle is probably the truth.

But once again, from a purely theoritcal standpoint. His statement is false and misleading.

scat -

Your message #5.5 says:

"Rather, his post should have read "I have been told.... or read....". "

In Derek's initial message he says:

"I'm not an American, but those I talked to ..."

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference between what you wanted him to say and what he actually said. His initial phrase, to me, says "I have been told..." - just as you thought he should have.

Otherwise - with respect to his observation of the trickling down of Bush's popularity - certainly he could have read U.S. newspapers from wherever he is (either International editions, or Internet editions) and 'see' how Bush's popularity changed. That's how I got my information - I didn't criss-cross the country taking personal polls. If you did - fine, but I suspect that most of us 'saw' Bush's popularity slip without leaving our county, state or region.

Thanks for the defense guys!

Now, scat, I feel that you are taking a very shallow and un-intelligent view point. As a non-citizen of the United States of America, I am able to begin with an impartial, un-patrioticly biased view, and consider evidence and formulate an opinion from there.

I don't come to Newsvine because I have nothing better to do with my day, I come here because I have study(ied) both past and modern events and like to share my opinion with intelligent individuals.

As a Canadian citizen, I can assure you I hear my fair share of pro and anti-Bush news. If you think all we do is sit around, drink beer, carve our igloos, and watch hockey all day, think again. Our igloos do, contrary to popular belief, have power outlets, which allows us to purchase TVs, computers, etc..., giving us access to the news. Funny, eh?

Now, you would be wise to care about what I have to say because the United States' economic recession has dragged Canada down the tube with it (along with other nations), so yes, the failures of supply-side economics have affected me directly. The United States is one of Canada's foremost trading partners, and if that blows your noodle, reckon this: what goes on in almost every nation as of this day does indeed have an effect on every other nation. Take a peek at my column, there should be something discussing that further.

Just because the 'richest' are registered Democrats, doesn't mean that tax cuts to the wealthy (synonym for rich) aren't going to affect them. What do you think the government is going to do, give tax cuts to only the wealthy individuals who aren't registered members of the Democratic Party?

In conclusion, to sit on the outside and comment is not foolish. Why do you think basketball teams have coaches? He's sitting on the outside and commenting about the game, and he certainly isn't a fool.

Just because I'm not a citizen of the United States doesn't mean Bush's stupid economic policies haven't had an affect on me as a global citizen, in fact, if you do not realize this, you need a lesson in interdependence and how it contributes to the world.

As well, how is my statement false and misleading? During Bush's time, the economy hit a recession, which is pretty well a fail to his supply-side economic policies. As well, if you get out and about and take a look at the global community's opinion of America AND it's President, you'll see that both have 'trickled down' quite a bit.

Thanks,

Derek M: member of the global community, who all, sadly enough, were affected by Bush's policies.

Derek, I really don't care if you are from Canada or over the pond.

It is Obvious, due to globalization, that you have a cause and effect when ANY country is turmoil.

My point was that statements are made where they shouldn't be made. Hey, I know everyone wants to bash Bush, and rightly so. I am a fiscal conservative, who was appalled by Bush. That being said, one cannot make a bold statement that supply side economics doesn't work based on the current recession.

For those who did not hear, we were in a recession for the last 2 years of the Clinton Admin and Bush 2 inherited a recession. These are normal market cycles, that happens in every administration. Also, supply-side economics is nothing new, it has been the basis of the country since it founding. And in your case, Canada's founding also. So one can barely blame supply-side economics for the current situation.

My debate was not about your opinion, which you are entitled to. Rather, I took exception to statement or pun regarding trickling down. Thus, my more theoretical debate on experience and observation. Which for the record, is dead on.

Fact is, call it whatever you want, Trickle down, supply side, this has been the basis for our economy since its inception. And guess what, it isn't broke. Rather the government that interferes with it, is.

For the record, discource shouldn't be viewed unpatriotic or patriotic. So please don't lecture.

If we were in a recession for the last two years of the Clinton administration how is it that our economy was growing; that the stock market hit it's highest in 2,000 (not 1998) and that more people were working in 2,000 than 1999 or 1998 or 2002 for that matter?

You need to check again; there was a leveling off in the last quarter (October - December) of 2000 but there was no contraction and indeed it was a combination of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and Sep 11, 2001 that caused a downturn

The reason nobody heard of this is that it didn't happen; please refrain fro m using hallucinatory medications when posting on Newsvine.

No, Trickle down has never been the basis of our economy until an attempt to implement it was employed by Reagan - because it obviously can not work. Demand creates jobs, not supply. The problem is that as long as the inheritor class controls supply causing false shortages to raise prices - the first gas "crisis" in the 70's was caused by these inheritors. We did NOT have net less gasoline; but they convinced the average person who was keeping their tank (on average) between 1/4 and 1/2 full to fill it more - all that gas changed storage from Oil company tanks to our gas tanks - they reduced hours claiming there was less gas and thereby reduced their own costs, raised prices and profits, scared people into beliving something that was inherently untrue.

Yes, our economy is broke - when people do not work they do not have money to spend and we get into a deflationary spiral. Too much of the nations economy is controlled by too few and ytoo much of the revenus goes to an increasingly smaller number of people at the top. If the economy were healthy we would have had different types of vehicles, different types of Banks; instead they are concentrating ever more using a recession as an excuse - concentrating ownership in a recession only makes matters worse!

If we were in a recession for the last two years of the Clinton administration how is it that our economy was growing; that the stock market hit it's highest in 2,000 (not 1998) and that more people were working in 2,000 than 1999 or 1998 or 2002 for that matter?\

This isn't a serious question is it?

The reason is that in 2000 we were at the frothy top of the dot.com bubble. Just as in 2006 we were at the irrationally exhuberant top of the current bubble.

I clearly remember watching my retirement account lose huge sums between January and March of 2000 from tech-heavy mutural funds, which is why to this day I will only buy individual equities who I know and whose business I can understand.

I also remember the unemployment rate steadily rising through all of 2000. By spring it was quite high in MA, who was a canary in that recession's coal mine, being a state with a heavy technology industry.

The reason is that in 2000 we were at the frothy top of the dot.com bubble. Just as in 2006 we were at the irrationally exhuberant top of the current bubble.

The dot.com bubble has nothing to do with GDP growth. The GDP was 1999: 5.6, 2000: 5.9 and 2001: 2.6. Official record the 2001 recession was March 2001 - November 2001. I'm checking but I can't find a quarter of negative growth in 2000.

clearly remember watching my retirement account lose huge sums between January and March of 2000 from tech-heavy mutural funds, which is why to this day I will only buy individual equities who I know and whose business I can understand.

If you invested in the dot.com speculation for fast money - was you're own fault. Firm assets, production grew.

Granny did you not read the quote that I was responding to? Your eyes must be going bad! The Stock Market and Employment numbers are what I referenced...

Check the NASDAQ numbers for the last 2 quarters of 2000 and first two quarters of 2001 to see what I'm talking about.

Oh, and thanks for the moralizing, but I don't recall blaming anyone for my losses? Maybe your firm assets grew, mine dropped precipitously in 2000-2002. In 2003 I saw the light and began buying straight equities., simple-minded sould that I am. Oh yeah, and I got some work done on those assets...just kidding.

Nothing wrong with my eyes. I just don't mix apples and oranges. No where do I read where recession is measured by these components.

Check the NASDAQ numbers for the last 2 quarters of 2000 and first two quarters of 2001 to see what I'm talking about.

Nope didn't/don't invest in the NASDAQ companies - stayed with blue chip DOW and low cost mutual funds AA allocation 60/30- and yes, my firm assets grew quite nicely in those "ugly" Clinton years. Thank you. But Bush - after 13000 - I saw the hand writing on the wall - do a little light reading now and again - when my eyes hold up that is - knew it was a house of cards ready to tumble and escaped - I could live without the last little push.

In 2003 I saw the light and began buying straight equities.

How did that work out for you in 2008?

Left out the 10 - that's a CD cash ladder.

grannyj I'm wondering whether you're not talking about someone else's comments...

What I quoted and responded to was this:

If we were in a recession for the last two years of the Clinton administration how is it that our economy was growing; that the stock market hit it's highest in 2,000 (not 1998) and that more people were working in 2,000 than 1999 or 1998 or 2002 for that matter?

Note, the stock market in 2000 is in the quote, to which I responded. (ingeniously he doesn't mention When in 2000, because by the end of 2000 it was going DOWN baby DOWN). GDP is NOWHERE in that quote, so I don't know why you come at me with GDP as if I'd ever said the first thing about it, quote me where you think I said anything about GDP. That is your baby.

To which I responded this:

This isn't a serious question is it?

The reason is that in 2000 we were at the frothy top of the dot.com bubble. Just as in 2006 we were at the irrationally exhuberant top of the current bubble.

The other thing in the QUOTE to which I was actually responding, not the one that you believe I was responding to, is unemployment numbers.

And I can tell you that by the end of 2000, the tech-heavy industrial base of MA was in serious trouble with dot.coms folding weekly, and unemployment rising.

All before Bush. And Granny that was the point I actually made. So you take your old eyes and go back and read what I actually said, and maybe you can figure out that you are not responding to it in any way.

And 2008 has been a good year for me. Things have gone well since 2002 when I realized that I need to invest exclusively in real companies whose businesses I can get my head around, and who are profitable.

Sem - actually she was referring to your remark "The reason is that in 2000 we were at the frothy top of the dot.com bubble. Just as in 2006 we were at the irrationally exhuberant top of the current bubble." and that is where GDP came in. (Ya gotta keep up!)

The Dot.COM "Bubble" did not burst in 1998, it was 2001 that we saw the first declines, and after Sep 11 that the real declines started (blamed on Sep 11, although as you said the essentials were already there). Trust me, I was a webmaster at that time, I know when it happened.

If you have numbers for MA that are different please link them here; I do recall that when Compaq bought DEC and then lcosed it; this cost a bunch of jobs in MA (it closed companies developing DEC software which also were mostly in MA)

I remember in 2003 the NYSE Industrials were also in the 7K - 8K range just like now; from the same cause - lack of investment in infrastructure; in 2000 we hit the peak at nearly 12 K and the low point was On October 9, 2002, the DJIA bottomed out at 7,286.27 (No, by the end of 2,000 it was slowly sinking; was still over 11K)

Anecdotal evidence is not proof; especially when the real history is just so easily accessible on the internet

Scat- its all good man, feel free to believe what you believe, but you pretty well told me that because I wasn't American, no one cares about what I think, so I happily defend myself.

As for supply side economics, yeah, the United States has used them, and look where thats got you now. Quite frankly, the problem isn't the economic model, because in theory, every economic model works. However, the problem lies in the manner to which they are employed. Sure sure, the tax cuts to the wealthy will eventually trickle down and help everyone. Yeah, that works if you are Adam Smith and the year is 1783, when multinational corporations, off-shore bank accounts, and limitless supplies of 'cover your ass-ets' beaureaucratic avoidances don't exist.

If I give you $10 million tomorrow, and say, go ahead, its all yours; what are you going to do? Maybe retire? Buy a new car? But for the most part, I doubt you will spend the majority of it, instead opting to save. Thats the problem, people save money. They want lots. In the time it takes them to spend the extra money supply siding gives them, its almost time to put their great-grandchildren in the nursing home themselves.

As for de-regulation, all you end up doing is stealing money and services from people who need it only so large corporations can use it for such things as $5000 garbage cans, an office the size of my house, and a private jet to boot around in. Instead, this money could go, to say, the homeless man, the prostitute, the drug addict, the senior citizen, to help them.

The Dot.COM "Bubble" did not burst in 1998, it was 2001 that we saw the first declines, and after Sep 11 that the real declines started (blamed on Sep 11, although as you said the essentials were already there). Trust me, I was a webmaster at that time, I know when it happened.

Actually the NASDAQ index graphs out showing the stock market burst in 2000, not in 2001, though it continued to deteriorate through 2002.. In other words, within three months of when Bush took office, it was tanking. . If you look at stock market indexes for 2000, you can see it on a graph. Try looking up the NASDAQ in the WSJ.

Yes, I understand what granny said, which is why I say that she wasn't replying to my point. Let me try this again..,

FIRST you say why were the stock market and employment doing so well until Bush came on the scene.

THEN I say that the reason why the stock market and employment were doing so well in 2000 was that 2000 was the peak of the dot.com bubble, as shown by the rapid descent of the NASDAQ by the end of 2000.

I am not saying that we were in a recession in 2000, or in 1998. Do you think I have said that? I make a point about stock markets and unemployment, and someone responds that there is no recession. Where is the logic in that, if you don't mind letting me know?

So now we have Granny going off about GDP, which I have never even been talking about, and recessions, which I have never been talking about, and her investment strategies and firm assets. All fine, but as she says, it is apples and oranges.

So to repleat yet again, my very limited point is about the stock market and employment, and I stand by it.

Anecdotal evidence vs. proof...like this you mean?

Trust me, I was a webmaster at that time, I know when it happened.

Well, wonderful! I was working in the technology industry in MA in 2000, as were half of my friends, and half of everyone I knew, and there were cracks, big cracks in the fissure by the end of 2001. Employment numbers are a lagging indicator as you no doubt are aware...In 2000, many people were still able to job hop, so much job loss as dot.com chop shops folded, but many still had capital to burn, and so people were able to get new jobs...but you go ahead. blame Bush for the dot.com bubble if it makes you feel better.

The "dot com bubble" was not that significant and the first Bush tax cuts and deregulations had happened in early 2001; long before Sep 11. When you are in an industry you tend to see things through that industry (anecdotal) rather than see the big picture.

The economy did NOT tank in 2,000 (or 2,001); that came later

Yes, I never said it did...

Why do you keep arguing against a point I've never made?

You are kidding me right.

Here is a thought Mike, Consumers (you) are unwilling to pay premium prices for your goods. The cost of production in America is way to high to be competitive on certain commodities. Thus, the existance of places like Wal-mart. Stop shopping there.

Plus, what about the huge loss in jobs that revolve around the importing and distribution of those evil imported goods.

The best thing you can do, is start saving money, pay off your lines of credit.

Also, your are going to tax $1m per job for overseas, LMAO. That will put every company out of business.

Plain Dumb

Scat, the problem is your arguments are opposed, our incomes are in the toilet, paying "premium prices" for goods is not part of our lexicon, mine anyway.

That is the point neenie of my post which was to counter Mike N. Our incomes are not matching cost of living expenses.

To purpose to make everything in the USA or levy unrealistic tarriffs on imports will have a castrophic effect. The cost of goods will increase significantly. However, our incomes will not increase equally. Plus, as I mentioned, a signifcant industry (that employees millions) will be gutted; losing more jobs.

Look why importing of finished and unfinished goods occured. Our living standard throughout the US has always been in the upper tier. Why then did the manufacturing base start to move out of the US. Why?

The consumer, us, wanted more goods but at reduced prices. Because of the well established infrastructure already in place (I.e. unions, pension plans, etc...). Low labor costs were needed, which forces people to look outside the US.

It is in fact, us, the consumers that caused this situation.

And I agree with you about paying premium prices for an equivalent product? I will not do it now, wouldn't do it when the economy is booming and won't do it in the future.

Everyone know why rich people are rich? Because they pay less for everything else by negoitating and save their money and then invest it.

Why would anyone pay $2 for a US made widget, when I can buy the identical thing for $1.

Mike -

I agree with you and Nearing. We have to encourage domestic production and I think that's one of the things that the stimulus package proposes. However, I think that Obama is proposing a tax credit for firms that create stateside jobs and use stateside materials rather than imposing a penalty for not creating stateside jobs and not using stateside materials. I'm not sure there's much of a difference in the end - but I haven't noodled it through.

I say if companies want to take their businesses over seas we tax the hell out of them when they import them back. Soon they'll get the hint and put their companies back on america soil and higher american workers, pay decent wages so that people can afford their product.

Perhaps if we had good-paying jobs, with benefits, we could afford to pay a little more for US-made goods. Meanwhile, we do need to start punishing companies who send jobs overseas -- not to mention companies like Wal-Mart that demand their suppliers use overseas manufacturers.

Greed should never be considered an American ideal.

It need not be tariffs (which would violate a buttload of trade agreements / treaties if we did it)

Start with eliminating the tax deductability of foreign wages, foreign costs, shipping profits offshore to avoid taxes.

There are many ways to do this "incentivizing" in our tax code

Good idea incentivizing the tax code. But WAIT.....

Isn't everyone complaining that these coporations are greedy and we need to tax the hell out of them?

Can't have it both ways boys and gals.

Let's be real here, If you look at the cost structures between most Domestically based or Imported products, to make up the difference in labor costs alone, the domestically made goods and those business would have to be tax free. If they were made tax free, State and county and city budgets would be gutted.

Also, throw in the fact, that you would start a trade war with those countries. Thus, you would put all business that actually exports at huge risk.

Lastly, look at why things went overseas to begin with. We wanted near quality goods at cheaper prices, which caused many manufacturers to meet OUR demand. To meet our demand, labor costs had to be cut. Thus, move them out of the US.

If you want to bring manufacturing back, you have to incentivize the consumer, NOT THE MANUFACTURER. The MFG will follow the market. That is a somewhat novel approach for most of Socialists on these boards. It is called Free-market capitalism. The thing being gutted right now by Obama and what Bush 2 did.

Scat - you are somehow confused. those who want to incentivize the manufacturer are the republicans (just how did you think Bush's TARP came to have absolutely NO oversight?); those who want to incentivize consumers are the democrats.

Do not be confused by "tax cut" gibberish; the republicans want even more tax cuts for the rich and they want to destroy the ability of government to govern; to protect workers and consumers (that nasty peasant, rabble)

What destroyed our economy was not free trade agrements but the war of the rich on Labor, as unions became less powerful so our wages fell in all jobs. Not immigrant workers, not outsourcing (which many are coming to realize was genuinely stupid; outsourcing was a fad and many of those jobs can't be done properly by outsiders) the number one statistic that relates to the rise and fall of the middle class and wages is Unions.

the difference in Labor costs is irrelevant when it takes 3 or 4 to do the work of 1 here in America, our workers have always had higher productivity. Things went overseas (1) because it was the "thing" to do to get a raise and get the stock price up, raise executive salaries - it's just that it worked ONLY when the other guy didn't do it as well, in the end we all lose.

And it may surprise you that Socialism is all about free markets, which is why those boards so oppose it; why when Russia changed from Communism, they insisted on calling it the "fall of socialism" when there have been no socialist governments so none of them could fall (actually, in socialism, the government goes away as it is no longer needed except primarily as an accountant)

Eriq, that was sarcasm.

I was pointing out that in previous posts it was stated to tax the hell out of corporations who go overseas or impose stiff tariffs. Which would be foolish.

My point is that us, the consumers, caused the loss of jobs. While I agree our productivity is high (many reasons for that, which I won't go into), these moves were to lower costs to market and obviously maintain profit.

Ultimately, if Americans want jobs back here, stop consuming goods not American made. Those companies will move back.

Ultimately, if Americans want jobs back here, stop consuming goods not American made. Those companies will move back.

A lot of the companies need to provide quality products first.

"Creating jobs" is a BS term - in actuality WE create the jobs through demand; if the rich created jobs there would be no increase in income to the business, no increase in sales.

elite base video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls

Thanks for adding that link. Anybody making under, say $10,000,000 a year, needs to calm down their posturing midget rooster feathers when advocating more tax-cuts for the 'upper-bracket' as a cure for America's economic ills...

LOL!

classic!

They are just waiting for the Wizard of O' to provide for them ... afterall that's the gov'ts job to give me what I need and tell me what I can do.

Bush is history. Why are we still beating on him?

Um, so American's will wake the @!$%# up and demand that their politicians do what is best for their country, and not for the corporations that lobby them.

So why not focus on holding Obama and the Democrats' feet to the fire, as they now have the power, instead of obsessing over Bush and the Republicans, who are history?

Luke, it's all part of a process. There are a lot of areas that are really important. We need more senators like Claire McCaskill. And to encourage other senators to follow her lead, they need to hear from their constituents. But most Americans are just sitting around waiting for what is to come. We have become too compliant.

afterall that's the gov'ts job to give me what I need

Apparently it was for the top 400 - 17.2% - so they could create all those millions and millions of jobs - that's what I'm told.

That's just what John Boehner and Eric Cantor said (with a straight face).

Any of you Bush bashing "tax cuts for the rich" types see something wrong with this picture? Maybe you all should be jumping on Obama for not following through on his promises instead of revisiting history.

Well maybe he should get more than 10 days to step away from the damn cliff and work his way off of the Mount Everest he inherited - from who?, before you start yelling broken promises.

I'm not yelling about broken promises. I hope he breaks more of his promises. I'm asking why the Obama supporters aren't raising hell about the broken promises. Instead, the Obama supporters are making excuses.

Obama himself said that tax increases on the rich are off the table for a couple of years. Note that Pelosi is disagreeing and wants them now. Considering everything else Obama and the Democrats are ramming though in these last 10 days, they could certainly get a tax increase done if Obama truly wanted it.

Still too harsh, here's the Sem0lina alternative:

Income tax

over 10 million - 60%

5-10 million - 55%

1-5 million - 40%

350K - 1 million - 35%%

150K-349K - 33%

50-150K - 25%

below 50K - 5%

below 30K - 2%

Capital gains - also a graduated system,

up to 10K - 7%

10K - 100K - 12%

100K - 500K - 15%

500K -2 million - 25%

2 million - 5 million - 35%

above 5 million - 40%

Remember, the capital gains were already taxed once as income. They are being taxed a second time as investment.

Everyone should pay something, some should pay very little, none should pay so much that government becomes infinite bloat.

The rates above will enable the national debt to be paid down over time. If you tax capital beyond what the rich will tolerate, they will simply send their capital overseas to Dubai or elsewhere.

Honestly, I'd rather the government just cut me a check and let me get my own health care on the open market, same with my education. Just figure out how much each family gets for health care and education, and send me the check, I'll go out and buy health and education services on the 'free' market anyday.

Sem0l1na -

I like your proposal, but I can't see how capital gains are taxed a second time. After all, folks are taxed only on the 'gains'. That is, the money left after taking out the initial capital (already taxed) outlay.

I'm asking why the Obama supporters aren't raising hell about the broken promises. Instead, the Obama supporters are making excuses.

Raise hell about what? He's only been in office for (almost) two weeks!

This reminds me of a Stephen colbert skit, where he talks about all the promises obama broke on his inauguration day.

Has our society been so wrapped around instant gratification that we can't even give the prez his 100 days before we complain?

Sem0l1na -still too incredibly harsh - the deal was when taxes were that high there were just so many ways to reduce them (as now) that nobody ever paid anywhere near 90%

The real deal is an exemptionless, exceptionless, deductionless system

"Everyone should pay something," not necessarily, the idea of a progressive system is that no one is taxed INTO poverty, that tax rates are set so that those who can afford to pay more do. I would also warn you about false economies. When you tax government benefits you actually have to raise the benefit to cover the tax - silly. It's like having to add money to your right hand to put it in the left.

"none should pay so much that government becomes infinite bloat." this has nothing to do with rates - unless you tie rates to the revenue government needs to balance it's books

more realistic (there are NO deductions so everyone pays the family of four rate which incentivizes fewer children / population control)

0 - 25K no taxes

25 - 50K 2 %

50 - 100K 4 %

100 - 150K 6%

150 - 200K 8 %

over 200K 10%

right now the average real tax rate for the top tax bracket (what they really pay) is about 6%; those over a million is more like 2%. By eliminating ALL reductions from income we actually would collect much more money total

No deduction for anything. No deduction for labor, materials, depreciation, advertising, travel, entertainment, nothing. It simplifies and makes income tax preparation quick.

Make it a simple sales or receipt tax. And all money transferred out of the country for any reason also gets the same sales tax treatment of the same tax percentage. Whether it is for goods, services or just sending money to non-US-resident family it has a sales/receipt tax.

Make it a flat 10% or whatever it takes to balance the budget. Then people will care when money is spent on war because they will immediately feel the tax percentage increase to cover the war spending (or whatever else Washington votes to fund.)

most likely more than it does (remember NO deductions, exemptions, exceptions)

Furthermore this goes to the postcard sized tax return - you add up all your income look up the tax on that - done!

eriq -

I'm afraid we have to part company on the 'no deductions' approach. I have a small business, and I pay county business taxes on my gross income. Some of my projects have high subcontracting expenses. For instance, a $25,000 job may include $20,000 in laboratory costs. I get to 'keep' that $20,000 for about 1 day between the time the client's payment check clears and when I send a check to the lab. Nevertheless, I have to pay taxes on the full $25,000. I think that stinks. If I had to do the same thing on my income tax - I would be doubly angry.

I am not a small business owner, but I also agree that costs of doing business (including US jobs) should be deducted from gross income. Businesses should be based on profits. (Other that that, eriq makes so much sense!)

Yes - but (there IS a but) - if everyone of your competitors had to do the same; then it would come down to whether the final product were really worth all the costs involved (right now we subsidize these with those deductions; which is patently unfair to everyone else)

If you allow any deductions how do you justify them as being so special from all the others. No deductions means that (rls8r) you - and anyone competing with you - needs to put that cost into the final price (how is this expense special from an electric plant buying oil for power generation, a McDonalds worker having to buy a tie and white shirt?) its a cost of doing business and as such equal to anyone else's costs

You might be angry but it is only fair AND it makes those things that really cost too much (when NOT subsidized) not marketable; would incentivize reducing waste, pollution, etc.

Everyone has a cost of doing business - the fair way is to have a standard deduction / tax range that is so low it does not pay taxes (i.e. any income below say 25K) and anything above that is taxed (look at how low the rates become)

Deductions for "cost of doing business" would involve employee costs (wages and benefits), material costs and limited overhead costs (rent, computers) that are a NECESSARY part of business. Corporate jets, for instance, would not be a part of this cost.

That's my opinion, for what it is worth. Don't forget, I am NOT a small business owner.

Not the point; if you allow any costs to be deducted you (in all fairness) should allow all costs; for some businesses corporate jets would be a must as other competing businesses would have them.

This is not a hard concept - when you allow a deduction you are really dumping that cost out to the taxpayer (who's taxes are raised - at some point in time - to cover the shortage) AND distorting the market by not putting all the financial costs (e.g. pollution, etc.) on the rpoduct / service. In some cases when people see the total cost they may not want the product service.

Look, people; We have a depletion allowance for Christmas trees - that means you are paying higher taxes so that someone can sell christmas trees at a lower price and stick you with the difference. Some people can deduct what they wear for work and some people can not; depending on the IRS definition of "work clothes" when in each case it is the same clothes, just different jobs.

There is NO justification for deducting any expenses if NO ONE can deduct them

Well it's a lot of self reliant people in America who should like to know where this river is you speak of...do care to share? Or did the Rich hoard that river as well?

The river is free and it's there for all who wish to do the hard work of life. I'm not , just blue collar working guy, but I have always tried to do the right thing, be honest, work hard , pay my way, give to others as much as I can , and vote for the best person what ever party. Greed by rich or poor is wrong and should not go without cost. If laws or regulation are the way to control it we should have them, officials who don't live up to the task or refuse to act responsibly should not get our vote. The "rich" as you put it are not the enemy , many do much good but some are crooks, those are ones that need to be dealt with . many poor are corrupt as well , just like anyone who thinks only of themselves .

It's not just hard work - "it takes money to make money". People who are poor and middle class simply don't have the money for the boat to go on the river.

Save some money and start with a canoe, then work your way up instead of waiting for the gov't to come and take you for a ride.

well ... yeah ... except you cut down all the trees for your mansion, and burned down the rest for the view; already. Yet another ignorant "let them eat cake" comment

I'm betting there will soon be a lot of people who will be very happy having a job that pays as well as a butler anywhere.

How did the 400 richest do under Clinton? I bet they made out ok, they just needed to finesse the accounting a little.Please remember 90% or Enron happened under Clinton's watch

How many jobs created? 22 million? We don't mind when us little folk are getting ahead too - our income growing like it was then - when theirs go up and ours go down and when unemployment is running rampant and getting worse - we get a little testy. Plus their tax rate was a little higher then.

Who here tries to pay extra in taxes on their income? Raise your hands

Nope, just follow the rules that our esteemed congress mandated that apply to my bracket. Just like they do. You belong to the 400 club?? (not mean - a joke)

Especially when a lot of that money went into business investment, you know, the thing that makes jobs? Jobs, the biggest and best economic stimulus of all time.

Really? How many jobs have we ended up with? 22 million? I think our income growth went down not up - that testy thing again

Sorry, I just can't get too frothed up about their running away with the tax money, especially considering that the tax money was just being poured down the toilet the whole last decade. I'd run away with every dime of my tax money that I could before sending it to Iraq or to pay the gravy-stuffed bureaucrats' salaries in Washington for 50K coffeepots at the Pentagon

I hear ya - can't come up with an argument here - although I don't think it was a decade. Debt:

12/31/1999: 5,776,091,314,225.33

01/20/2001: 5,727,776,738,304.64 (George sworn in) I believe 2001 number is less than 1999 - so geez at least for a little while we actually paid on the damn debt amazing)

Have you calculated your percentage of tax to income from those years? And I don't believe you pay social security/medicare taxes on capital gains - do you?

Speaking of jobs, how many staff did the richest 400 employ to staff their yachts and maintain their multiple homes (The average butler salary was over 75K if I remember right from Richestan)

Yep, that will solve the unemployment problem.

And Mark: ...Or the maid.

How did the 400 richest do under Clinton? I bet they made out ok, they just needed to finesse the accounting a little.Please remember 90% or Enron happened under Clinton's watch.

I don't care. They gave us all jobs. GOOD paying jobs. You're missing the point.

Well, up until 2006 unemployment was pretty darned low wasn't it? Of course some of that is artificial, the real figure is supposed to be an underestemate...plus some workers were in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan....ugly situations both.

Please do remember that baby Bush inherited the dot.com bubble burst and subsequent recession and job losses, in his first year in office - this can hardly be attributed to him, though of course he did plenty to pour money down the toilet the whole time he was in office. Then came 9/11 and the huge financial panic that followed, which also hurt the economy - I am reasonable confident that Cheney (the dark lord) didn't engineer 9/11, though I'd never put anything past a face like that.

As far as jobs, I can't speak for states other than MA, but the knowledge economy here did extremely well between 2003 and 2007. Heck up through most of 2008 everyone I know was just hanging up on recruiters on a daily basis.

Of course MA didn't base their economy on building and flipping McMansions for the last ten years. Defense R&D contracting did well. One company I worked at in 2003 built mine-sniffing robots to send to Iraq...they were raking it in. BTW I wasn't working on any of their DOD work, I was on a laboratory automation project for life-science discovery research...not that I have anything against military R&D, but just to clarify.

Now the Treasury, SEC, and Fed are all guilty of criminal negligence and in the case of Hank Paulson, criminal actions. Some of that negligence came under Clinton, some came under Bush. Just because one was bad doesn't mean the other one wasn't bad too, why take partisan sides over it? There is PLENTY of blame to go around, at both the Fed level and the local...how many serial house flippers out there contributed to the house price bubble? Was that Bush's fault, or is there any personal accountability there? How many serial refinancers did nothing with their money except pay for 100K kitchen renovations? Is that Bush's fault? Did Bush tell them to cover their kitchens in granite and Jennaire stoves? How many people with 50K incomes bought 500K homes on interest-only and adjustable rate loans? Did Bush tell them to re-landscape their yards with heated outdoor living rooms that were usable for about five months a year?

None of the great unwashed seem to want to take the slightest bit of ownership for their actions. I'm saying that from the point of view of being hunkered down in a 1300 sq foot condo in the inner city for the last seven years, with a formica-covered kitchen and great access to public transportation - I CHOSE not to live above my means, I CHOSE to not move to the apartheid suburbs, I CHOSE to stay in a small house on a good fixed rate mortgage instead of moving into something big and unsustainable. And now I have to bail out all these real-estate speculators AND have to listen to complaining about the incomes of 400 people who created good paying jobs for a LOT of other people?

Oh, please, find something better to complain about like the financial industry bailout.

He also said you only had to be liked for one day.

Pitchforks and clubs? Where we gonna meet?

Agree with you Angela - they may have gotten a little too greedy this time.

I suggest an A-K or Uzi and maybe a few granades from eBay...

we get a little testy.

Easy now...How about a nice cup of tea?

I'll go read your Article Wizeguy

They tried it in the 20's and you see what it got us - wealth disparity then also - depression killed supply side then - WORLD WAR killed the depression

Along comes Ronald Reagan and here we go again - Debt was about 908 Billion then - now 28 years of supply side, trickle down, voodoo economics - wealth disparity widest since the 20's, Debt now 11 Trillion and here we are - again - standing on the cliff looking down at a depression getting ready to jump

Isn't there an old saying some about if you forget history you're doomed to repeat it - well DUH!!!

standing on the cliff looking down at a depression getting ready to jump

Don't do it Granny! Better times are coming I can feel it. The Republicans are scared to death the the polices being set will work. We will see "trickle up" very soon.

Wizeguy-yes, after all that why would someone be a Republican?

However, both parties wear plenty of mud.

However, both parties wear plenty of mud.

How true but it doe's seem when the Dems are in the majority things seem to be better for the common man/woman. In theory trickle down should work. Maybe when someone acquires vast sums of wealth a greed gene kicks in and their brain is stuck on me me me and only me. (sarcasm)

Wizeguy- adam smith's invisible hand is green, greedy, evil and loves money.

Smith used the phrase "invisible hand" only once in his work, in chapter two of the fourth book, "Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries." His usage was in the context of a problem, in Smith's view, posed by free and open markets among nations. If markets were free and open, the question arose how would a nation (such as England, the nation Smith cared about) keep its capitalists from moving their capital out of the nation and into other countries where labor could be bought for cheaper. The answer, Smith says, is that they will act with a view toward their own particular nationalistic interests which happen to correspond with the "public interest" at home. In this way, by "preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry,"

I am not sure how many if any of our modern day "Conservatives" heed this message.

nationalistic interests which happen to correspond with the "public interest" at home. In this way, by "preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry

Wizeguy- I can see the rich now. Hands outstretched with national interests in one hand and personal interests in another. Decisions!Decisions! Love my country or get rich quick??? In a global economy national interests go down the toilet.

Back N'Black74- then they move the money to their clever tax exempt trust fund.

The rich lawyers make the tax rules for the rich. Is this extortion, usury, and a conflict of interest?

Oh, dont get me started on our hypocritical legal system. It definately is designed by the very wealthy, in all phases (tax, criminal and otherwise). Our legal systems maxim should be : If you can pay, you dont pay, If you cannot pay, then you will pay.

It's the golden rule... he who has the gold rules

and he who has not the gold, better play by the rules.

I wonder if you gave 10 million dollars to every inmate to assemble a top legal team if even half would remain incarcerated, regardless if they are guilty or not?

Kind of like the movie "Trading Places"

be intresting to see

OMS-- original humor? SNL owes you. LoL.

Yes. 1965

waukone

Are you saying to listen to Bill Gates? The man who outsources and wants to bring in more immigrants to ( I believe) keep himself rich?

This is a correct statement...many of the megarich were opposed to the Bush tax cuts. It was the 'affluent' and 'aspirational rich', those with incomes in the 200K to 5million range who are deadly opposed to eliminating them.

Waukone, actually Gates has put most of his money into the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. He has been lauded as a coporate Robin Hood, who has taken money from all the rich corporations for decades on the Windows operating system and office software, and then turned around and given it to schools, libraries, and developing countries, via the foundation, to fund education and public health projects Now if you want to shake a finger at a big technology name, I suggest Larry Ellison of Oracle, who has the reputation of being the biggest pr!@k in the technolgy world, and to the best of my knowledge does little philanthropy with his dough....sorry to keep defending Gates, I can't tell you how much I loathe Vista...

Not that this cancels the validity of your points around the visas, but the truth is that tthe US needs more blue collar job creation, how many out of work engineers does anyone know? Not that there aren't ANY but by the numbers, it's the blue-collar guy who's competing with the undocumented worker, who is in real trouble. This has nothing to do with visas for engineers.

I wish I could make billions off my subjects so I could spend back on the very subjects I made it from. I will not think of how much is being legaly stolen.

A. Macarthur

William H. Gates, Chairman of Microsoft Corporation – Bill Gates, one of the richest individuals in the history of the world – spoke within the last year before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the United States Senate.

Gates' opening words were; “It is an honor for me to appear before you today to share my thoughts on the future of American education, the development of our workforce, and other policies necessary to ensure America’s continued competitiveness in the global economy."

If you are a middle-class American, beware those “other policies,” because they are what Mr. Gates actually wanted “to share” and, if implemented, they will further erode your status and lifestyle.

Gates then praised the role of technology and quickly injected the altruistic work of his Foundation and how “innovative solutions in health care and education…” can “…reduce inequities in the United States and around the world.” Sounds good - right?

Gates even lauded the way “…technologies have helped America achieve unprecedented gains in productivity and real wage growth.” America , productivity, wages – sounds real good!

And then came the agenda. Gates said: “When I reflect on the state of American competitiveness today, my immediate feeling is not only one of pride, but also of deep anxiety.” Get ready. “Too often, we as a society are sacrificing the long-term good of our country in the interests of short-term gain. Too often, we lack the political will to take the steps necessary to ensure that America remains a technology and innovation leader.”

Gates had set the stage. He spoke next about economic and technological leadership for the future and three important steps to ensure it.

The First Step – while mostly about improving education and work skills in America – no one’s going to disagree with that – Gates worked in the idea of attracting “the brightest, most talented people from around the world.”

Then BANG – the REAL MESSAGE!

“This will not happen until we reform our immigration policies for highly skilled workers.“

I will spare you Steps Two and Three because they merely reiterated what Gates really wants; lots more H-1B visas – green cards – cheaper, foreign, imported labor for American and American-based foreign companies.

Did I mention cheaper? If you go to the web site of a group known as Compete America you will find Mr. Gates’ testimony in full; damn nice of them to go to all that trouble. Compete America is a coalition of corporations, educators, research institutions and trade associations committed to ensuring that the United States has the talent necessary for continued innovation, job creation and economic expansion in a worldwide economy. It all sounds wonderful…unless you are an American, Middle Class citizen who has lost or is about to lose his job to cheap labor outside of or inside of the United States. Compete America, once had another name. It was formerly American Business for Legal Immigration.

Don’t spit in my face and tell me it’s raining! To Mr. Gates, Compete America, The American Enterprise Institute, RIGHT-WING talk show hosts, Fox News and all the other shills for the rich and greedy assassins of the American Middle Class I say: "One day this will all come back to bite you in the rear end. You have been, in effect, saying for far too long, 'Let them eat cake'.”

To Bill Gates in particular, while technology is miraculous at times, I cite the author Karl Brown (1897-1990) – “Every gift that science has given… has been twisted into a thing of hate and greed.”

Aren’t you wealthy enough Mr. Gates? Must you gain even more wealth on the backs of Americans who just want decent jobs so that they can care for their families?

Those who have read my posts on the Vine will correctly view me as, on most issues, a "liberal." But on the issues of illegal immigration, the exportation of good jobs and the importation of cheap labor - I'm quite conservative. Both Democrats and Republicans have for too long, looked the other way when it comes to destroying the American Middle Class by stealing our jobs and eroding our salaries and way of life. Time to stop it!

“From top to bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused without knowing where to find ultimate foothold. Nothing can calm it, since its goal is far beyond all it can attain. Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned.”
– Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), French sociologist

Yes, well the GOP looked the other way quite a bit as the yuan was kept artificially low, leading to the flood of cheap imports and rush to outsource the jobs that USED to be middle class American jobs - you know, manufacturing?

Again, the couple of thousand visas isn't the problem, its the millions of manufacgturing jobs that have to do with trade pacts, currency manipulations, and other legalized enterprises...and again Bill Gates was AGAINST the Bush tax cuts. Last I checked that was the subject of this seed - taxes and wealth...

Gates is not an angel, that's for sure, but I'd hardly paint him as the Great Satan - leave that one for Dick Cheney!

sure, the megarich don't care. Because they don't pay taxes because their wealth is the corporation itself.

So what do they care. Start really taxing those guys, stop the outflow of monies to offshore holding companies, and they will change their tune immediately.

Anybody else think Bill Gates and company should pay a good hunk of the Immigrant cost?

Bill Gates is a? Democrat... He is not a conservative. He is a big ole' liberal!

GREAT ANALOGY!!! I'm going to use this one on all of my conservidiot friends...and enemies.

NotSanta

I am building a house with the trickle down theory, I'm starting with the roof and hoping the rest will fill itself in.

When I first read the post I didn't see who posted it. I assumed ole jackass junior was building that new house of his in Texas and wanted to let everyone know!