Iggy, there's a redistribution of wealth in this country that's been happening for the last 40 years, siphoned from the middle class up to the 1%. Who do you think paid for the Wall Street bailout interest free? The American taxpaxer....the middle class....saving the wealth of the 1%. It bothers me that someone who's conservative leaning doesn't realize how the economic policies of Reagan, Clinton and Dubya have shrunken the core wealth of the middle class while the rich have continued to get richer.
you must have not gotten the memo......hypocrisy is not in their vocabulary...just demogoging WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The middle class has shrunk drastically over the last 10 years as Americans' net worth has plunged, wages declined and standards of living slipped away, according to a report released on Wednesday. Middle-income earners, long seen as the solid center of the country, are pessimistic and place the blame squarely on U.S. lawmakers, banks and big business, the findings by the Pew Research Center showed. "America's middle class has endured its worst decade in modern history," researchers wrote. Since 2001, median household income has fallen from $72,956 to $69,487 in 2010, the report said. The median household net worth, which is the value of assets minus debt, dropped from $129,582 to $93,150 over the same 10-year period, according to Pew, which analyzed U.S. data along with its own survey of nearly 1,300 adults who consider themselves middle class.
It's the reason why a household with a single wage earner has a difficult time making ends meet nowadays. It's hard to raise a family when both parents have to work to keep a roof over their heads.
There shouldn't be redistribution of wealth in a healthy functioning economy. Taxes should be setup to encourage growth. But what happens is that politics affects how presidents run the economy. In a down economy like this one, marginal tax rates should be lowered for both individuals and businesses to grow the economy. Obama refuses to lower rates and cut spending because his voter base depends on him spending money on programs. In a booming economy, you need to raise taxes. Republicans like Reagan and Bush both never did this and that lead to problems in their second terms. It's unpopular to raise taxes, but its necessary to prevent an over-correction.
There is such a thing as 'surplus value', that is to say, the excess value of goods and services produced by workers above and beyond what they are paid. That amount is unjustly appropriated and taken by the owners of capital who often add very little to the production process, while the most poorly paid in the process add the most value. So there's an inherent redistribution upward of all wealth away from actual producers to the class of owners of capital. So I don't consider its redistribution downward to actual producers to be unjust.
The majority of wealth creation in this country is from capital investments. You have to understand that companies exist because someone risked their capital- both financial and time. So they are compensated appropriately for the risk they take. If the company does well, they make a lot of money. If the company fails, they have wasted their money and their time. An employee does not share the same risk, consequently they do not share the reward. If an employee wants to build wealth, they need to invest. But the concept of redistribution of wealth the current administration believes is wrong in my opinion. The thought that "because you took risk and were successful, you need to over compensate for those who didn't". I'm not rich, but I don't vilify the rich for their success.
Get used to the fact if you want to reduce the deficit you're going to have to raise taxes. Either you can do it the 'compassionate' way and ask more from those who have the most by raising the marginal income tax rate to the level it was under Clinton, from 30% now to the 39% it was then, or you can do it the 'egalitarian' GOP way, which will be to raise EVERYONE'S income taxes, because only that method would be fair to the wealthy.:smt080
What are you raising taxes on? People are already flat broke, unemployed, and companies are doing layoffs. So you think the way to reduce the deficit is by taxing more??? We need to lower rates on individuals and corporations to encourage economic growth. You also need to cut spending so that we can reduce budget. If you max out a credit card, how would you pay it off? You would make more money and stop spending. Obama's philosophy is get another credit card and keep spending. Clinton was able to raise taxes because he was in a good economy. That is exactly what you should do in a good economy. Raising marginal rates in a bad economy is a horrible idea. Reagan and Bush should have raised marginal taxes in their second terms. They spurred great economic growth in their first terms, but left rates too low for too long.
Here are the facts on Obama's spending Promise Kept or Broken? Obama claimed that his budget proposal fulfills his campaign promise "to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term." The House Budget Committee countered that "instead of fulfilling his campaign promise … the president’s budget doubles the debt over that same period of time." Obama’s claim is closer to reality than the Budget Committee’s. First, the president and the Budget Committee are talking about two different things. The deficit is the difference between the revenues (receipts) that the government collects and what it spends (outlays) in a given year. The debt is the accumulation of many deficits minus any surpluses. So, even if the debt increases, that doesn’t automatically mean that the president would be breaking his campaign promise to cut the deficit. But let’s look at the numbers anyway. According to the budget proposal, the deficit at the end of Obama’s first term in fiscal year 2013 would be $768 billion. That’s about a 46 percent decrease from the actual $1.4 trillion deficit at the end of fiscal year 2009. That’s very close to what the president claimed. As for the debt held by the public, the president’s budget projects that it will reach $12.8 trillion in FY 2013. That’s a nearly 71 percent increase from the $7.5 trillion public debt for fiscal year 2009. That’s a significant increase, but it’s not "double," as the Budget Committee claimed. That would require a 100 percent increase. If you look at the total federal debt, which includes money the government owes itself, it still doesn’t amount to a doubling over the same time period ($11.9 trillion in FY 2009 and $17.8 trillion in FY 2013). It remains to be seen what the deficit and publicly held debt will total in 2013. But based on current projections, the president is on track to keep his promise.
Does this prove that Obama is a "free spending Democrat"? Welcome to the real world....... Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures: ? Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes. ? ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the company’s president, Don Karner, in the first lady’s box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story. According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.” Worse, according to CBS News the company is “under investigation for insider trading,” and Karner has been subpoenaed “for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company.” ? Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in “financial turmoil” and that “[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’?” ? First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company “fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce.” ? Abound Solar, Inc. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. ? Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon — a green-energy storage company — a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, “Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of ‘CCC-plus.’ ” In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy. This is just the tip of the iceberg........... A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth. Brightsource got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million. And, of course, let’s not forget Solyndra — the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook. Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine. All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs. Now the man who made Solyndra a household name says Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital “is what this campaign is going to be about.” Good luck with that, Mr. President. If Obama wants to attack Romney’s alleged private equity failures as chief executive of Bain, he’d better be ready to defend his own massive public equity failures as chief executive of the United States. That looks like a $11.5 billion spending spree. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html
Lemme hold a few stacks of yours. Just like, $4,000. That's it. I promise I'll take good care of it. I'll even treat you to a hamburger and fries with the drink.
What?? Obama has racked up $5 trillion in debt in four years as president with an average of a $1 trillion deficit each year. That's more than the previous 43 presidents combined!! The only way he can cut the budget in half by 2013 is to pick one side of the country and drop a nuclear bomb on it and start America over.
