Family net worth retreats to early 1990's levels

[g5000]

No blaming Bush here.....This is all on Obama's watch..
Family Net Worth Drops to Level of Early

Apparently NOTHING negative happened on Obama's watch....

Nice false extrapolation you have going there.

The article is plainly talking about what happened to family income before Obama could possibly have been the cause, but that did not stop the half-cocked hopheads with serious reading comprehension retardation from pinning it on Obama.

They took an article that was not about Obama and made it about Obama.

But you go ahead and keep trying to make it about Obama anyway. That way, when a problem that really is Obama's fault comes along, you will learn the valuable lesson about crying wolf.

Thanks a lot.

 

[MikeK]

Sometimes I wish the president had the dictatorial power over the economy that some seem to think he has.

I understand the point you're making. But Obama did have the power to appoint a motivated and honest Attorney General and direct him to take aggressive action in investigating the Bush Administration and prosecuting every item of criminal activity by every one of those individuals and complicit legislators who could be convicted -- and there would be many.

That would have completely changed the atmosphere in Washington and the effect would have been sterilizing.

Prosecution is what is needed. Crooked officials exposed and imprisoned. We quietly hoped Obama would move in that direction --

-- but this is what we got.

What? And risk opening that door on the current administration when they leave office? And the next one? And the next one?

Never going to happen...

I believe there is a good chance of it happening with someone like Bernie Sanders in Office. I was skeptical about Obama from the beginning because he is a young man with a young family and a future to be concerned with. But Sanders is a cranky old man who knows where the bodies are buried and will not hesitate to dig them up. And once he got started there would be no stopping him.

As it is things will need to get a lot worse before they get better -- if they ever can. Right now there is a large percentage of right-wing anti-union water-carriers who believe they are safely couched on the winning side. But their turn will come. And if when it does there still is enough democracy left to vote in a socialist government from top to bottom, that is when the purge will begin and there will be a new New Deal.

 

[asterism]

No.

Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.

But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.

wow!

Show me how redistributing wealth can cause all wealth to go up.

It's actually quite simple. The trick is not to overdo it. When you put more money in the hands of lower and middle income workers, which happen to be the bulk of the populace and the ones who actually purchase the bulk of goods and services, you expand the economy. Those at the top reap the benefits as their business increase in revenue and profit. It's win win for everyone. Of course, it is easily possible to take the scenario too far, as in the way of Marxism. That does not work as it just makes everyone poor.

The thing is that there would not have to be any redistribution of wealth if employers spread the wealth a bit themselves through better pay and benefits. Getting super wealthy at the expense of everyone else does not benefit anyone in the long run, yet greed seems to lead us down this path over and over again. It is one of the pitfalls of capitalism. That is not to say we should move away from capitalism, but we should be aware that sometimes constraints are necessary.

Who decides what "enough" is? That's always the rub whenever someone says the rich should just pay more.

 

[DontBeStupid]

wow!

Show me how redistributing wealth can cause all wealth to go up.

It's actually quite simple. The trick is not to overdo it. When you put more money in the hands of lower and middle income workers, which happen to be the bulk of the populace and the ones who actually purchase the bulk of goods and services, you expand the economy. Those at the top reap the benefits as their business increase in revenue and profit. It's win win for everyone. Of course, it is easily possible to take the scenario too far, as in the way of Marxism. That does not work as it just makes everyone poor.

The thing is that there would not have to be any redistribution of wealth if employers spread the wealth a bit themselves through better pay and benefits. Getting super wealthy at the expense of everyone else does not benefit anyone in the long run, yet greed seems to lead us down this path over and over again. It is one of the pitfalls of capitalism. That is not to say we should move away from capitalism, but we should be aware that sometimes constraints are necessary.

Who decides what "enough" is? That's always the rub whenever someone says the rich should just pay more.

I think we can all agree that taxing someone to the point where they see no wealth or income increase is too far. But, in the 1950s, the top tax rate was over 90% and people still got wealthy. Very wealthy.

 

[Charles_Main]

No blaming Bush here.....This is all on Obama's watch..
Family Net Worth Drops to Level of Early

Wait, Now Liberals are bitching about Family Net Worth? Then Perhaps you should stop supporting a FUCKING 55% Death Tax on Peoples Estates. Then Families with Money would Have more to Pass on to the next Generation.

No you rather take it all and give it to some fucking idiots in DC to waste.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's actually quite simple. The trick is not to overdo it. When you put more money in the hands of lower and middle income workers, which happen to be the bulk of the populace and the ones who actually purchase the bulk of goods and services, you expand the economy. Those at the top reap the benefits as their business increase in revenue and profit. It's win win for everyone. Of course, it is easily possible to take the scenario too far, as in the way of Marxism. That does not work as it just makes everyone poor.

The thing is that there would not have to be any redistribution of wealth if employers spread the wealth a bit themselves through better pay and benefits. Getting super wealthy at the expense of everyone else does not benefit anyone in the long run, yet greed seems to lead us down this path over and over again. It is one of the pitfalls of capitalism. That is not to say we should move away from capitalism, but we should be aware that sometimes constraints are necessary.

Who decides what "enough" is? That's always the rub whenever someone says the rich should just pay more.

I think we can all agree that taxing someone to the point where they see no wealth or income increase is too far. But, in the 1950s, the top tax rate was over 90% and people still got wealthy. Very wealthy.

That is because there were all sorts of Loop holes, and Deductions that meant they paid not much more than they do now. Reagan not only Cut the Top Rate Dramatically, He also Eliminated many of the Loop Holes, and Deductions.

Nobody ever paid 90% bud. Wake up. After all Deductions, and Exemptions, and Loop Holes. The Rich Paid roughly 40% when the Top Rate was 90%.

Please try and live with in the Actual Facts, and not the Deliberately Skewed Packaging of them the Left likes to Repeat.

 

[asterism]

It's actually quite simple. The trick is not to overdo it. When you put more money in the hands of lower and middle income workers, which happen to be the bulk of the populace and the ones who actually purchase the bulk of goods and services, you expand the economy. Those at the top reap the benefits as their business increase in revenue and profit. It's win win for everyone. Of course, it is easily possible to take the scenario too far, as in the way of Marxism. That does not work as it just makes everyone poor.

The thing is that there would not have to be any redistribution of wealth if employers spread the wealth a bit themselves through better pay and benefits. Getting super wealthy at the expense of everyone else does not benefit anyone in the long run, yet greed seems to lead us down this path over and over again. It is one of the pitfalls of capitalism. That is not to say we should move away from capitalism, but we should be aware that sometimes constraints are necessary.

Who decides what "enough" is? That's always the rub whenever someone says the rich should just pay more.

I think we can all agree that taxing someone to the point where they see no wealth or income increase is too far.

Who decides what is enough?

But, in the 1950s, the top tax rate was over 90% and people still got wealthy. Very wealthy.

There were also many many loopholes that are now closed. Virtually nobody paid 90%.

Also, you're drawing a correlation where one does not exist. High marginal tax rates did not cause prosperity. Otherwise Kennedy wouldn't have succeeded in getting the economic growth he predicted by cutting federal income tax rates.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No.

Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.

But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.

Ok..How is the taking of wealth from one and giving it to another create more wealth? This oughta be good.
Oh, and you can skip the nonsense about the wealthy who "hoard" their money and thus deserve to lose some of it at the hands of government. And you can also forget the nonsense that suggests if the wealthy were robbed by government and the government turned around and gave all of your politically correct desirables a check that it would stimulate the economy.
Wealth is created through investment in new and existing business. Creation of jobs is the result. Increasing income from work is what creates wealth. Not moving the chess pieces around the board.

If you don't believe in Economics, there's no point discussing Economics with you.

Don't hand me this dismissive nonsense. The issue here is you don't have a response. So you try to turn this on me.
Not happening.
Your version. Go for it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No blaming Bush here.....This is all on Obama's watch..
Family Net Worth Drops to Level of Early

Apparently NOTHING negative happened on Obama's watch....

Nice false extrapolation you have going there.

The article is plainly talking about what happened to family income before Obama could possibly have been the cause, but that did not stop the half-cocked hopheads with serious reading comprehension retardation from pinning it on Obama.

They took an article that was not about Obama and made it about Obama.

But you go ahead and keep trying to make it about Obama anyway. That way, when a problem that really is Obama's fault comes along, you will learn the valuable lesson about crying wolf.

Thanks a lot.

That is YOUR version. Your opinion and your view is duly noted.
The fact is and once again a familiar refrain ( Bush's fault) that you people are still not on to the fact that this is OBAMA'S WATCH. End of story.
You go ahead and be a true believer if you wish. Vote Obama in November. With any luck, you'll lose and then we can get back to moving the country forward and leave behind this half cocked notion that liberalism works. Because it doesn't. The Euro Zone is a prime example of what NOT to do.

 

[Charles_Main]

The Fact this Jack Ass actually thinks people used to pay 90% Tells you all you need to know about him.

Can you imagine people earning 10 Million a year and getting to keep 1 Million? Think they would keep working so fucking hard? Jesus. What reality do these people live in.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Ok..How is the taking of wealth from one and giving it to another create more wealth? This oughta be good.
Oh, and you can skip the nonsense about the wealthy who "hoard" their money and thus deserve to lose some of it at the hands of government. And you can also forget the nonsense that suggests if the wealthy were robbed by government and the government turned around and gave all of your politically correct desirables a check that it would stimulate the economy.
Wealth is created through investment in new and existing business. Creation of jobs is the result. Increasing income from work is what creates wealth. Not moving the chess pieces around the board.

If you don't believe in Economics, there's no point discussing Economics with you.

Don't hand me this dismissive nonsense. The issue here is you don't have a response. So you try to turn this on me.
Not happening.
Your version. Go for it.

It's not dismissive. You have already decided that increasing discretionary spending for the poorer people in our population won't stimulate the economy. Even thought it will and has.

How do I talk to someone about a topic when he chooses to ignore the topic?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Fact this Jack Ass actually thinks people used to pay 90% Tells you all you need to know about him.

Can you imagine people earning 10 Million a year and getting to keep 1 Million? Think they would keep working so fucking hard? Jesus. What reality do these people live in.

They don't live in any kind of reality.
All they know is their fantasy of living is a socialist utopia.

 

[Chris]

The crash occurred in 2008.

Since Obama took office, Americans net worth is up $9 trillion dollars.

Republicans aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Correct.

You seem to suggest that if person A gets everything and his employees get nothing, that will be the best outcome. It isn't.

Nowhere did you suggest that Person A was an employer...

If Person A is an employer, his employees are receiveing a paycheck, probably medical insurance, and in many cases some sort of retirement plan. If said employees are not satisfied with this arrangement, they are free to move on.

On the other hand, if Person A is not an employer what would you suggest?

How does one justify hobbling the success of one person to give to another?

There is no hobbling. How is increasing your wealth $500M in a year "hobbling"?

The more people with more wealth growth the better. You've done nothing to disprove that.

The amount is immaterial. The fact is it is HIS money. Get it?!!!!!
once again, you as a lib demonstrate your desire to get to decide how much someone can earn and how much they should have in their possession.
Does not work that way.
It is the arrogance and elitism of the Left that produces the notion of being able to dictate who earns what and how much.
You libs should learn to mind your own affairs.

 

[Chris]

Nowhere did you suggest that Person A was an employer...

If Person A is an employer, his employees are receiveing a paycheck, probably medical insurance, and in many cases some sort of retirement plan. If said employees are not satisfied with this arrangement, they are free to move on.

On the other hand, if Person A is not an employer what would you suggest?

How does one justify hobbling the success of one person to give to another?

There is no hobbling. How is increasing your wealth $500M in a year "hobbling"?

The more people with more wealth growth the better. You've done nothing to disprove that.

The amount is immaterial. The fact is it is HIS money. Get it?!!!!!
once again, you as a lib demonstrate your desire to get to decide how much someone can earn and how much they should have in their possession.
Does not work that way.
It is the arrogance and elitism of the Left that produces the notion of being able to dictate who earns what and how much.
You libs should learn to mind your own affairs.

What a stupid argument.

Tax policy always dictates who earns what.

Republicans have decided that the super rich and the oil companies should earn more.

Sheesh!

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is no hobbling. How is increasing your wealth $500M in a year "hobbling"?

The more people with more wealth growth the better. You've done nothing to disprove that.

The amount is immaterial. The fact is it is HIS money. Get it?!!!!!
once again, you as a lib demonstrate your desire to get to decide how much someone can earn and how much they should have in their possession.
Does not work that way.
It is the arrogance and elitism of the Left that produces the notion of being able to dictate who earns what and how much.
You libs should learn to mind your own affairs.

What a stupid argument.

Tax policy always dictates who earns what.

Republicans have decided that the super rich and the oil companies should earn more.

Sheesh!

NO it does not. Tax policy dictates how much the government TAKES...
If you have a degree in business, it would come as no surprised you have been indoctrinated by a bunch of liberal professors. In other words a bunch of socialists. But don't anyone dare mess with their salaries when it comes time for the budgets to be passed.
Amazing how all you socialists become conservatives when it's YOUR money someone else is fucking with.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The crash occurred in 2008.

Since Obama took office, Americans net worth is up $9 trillion dollars.

Republicans aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.

Just because you post it, does not make it true.
In fact 99% of the shit you post is pure bullshit.
You have never posted a link that produces facts supporting your claims.
You are a walking wheel barrow full of bullshit.

 

[Dick Tuck]

wow!

Show me how redistributing wealth can cause all wealth to go up.

It's actually quite simple. The trick is not to overdo it. When you put more money in the hands of lower and middle income workers, which happen to be the bulk of the populace and the ones who actually purchase the bulk of goods and services, you expand the economy. Those at the top reap the benefits as their business increase in revenue and profit. It's win win for everyone. Of course, it is easily possible to take the scenario too far, as in the way of Marxism. That does not work as it just makes everyone poor.

The thing is that there would not have to be any redistribution of wealth if employers spread the wealth a bit themselves through better pay and benefits. Getting super wealthy at the expense of everyone else does not benefit anyone in the long run, yet greed seems to lead us down this path over and over again. It is one of the pitfalls of capitalism. That is not to say we should move away from capitalism, but we should be aware that sometimes constraints are necessary.

Who decides what "enough" is? That's always the rub whenever someone says the rich should just pay more.

Who decides how much we need to run a modern nation? For better or worse, we do. Who decides how progressive our income taxes should be, we also do.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's actually quite simple. The trick is not to overdo it. When you put more money in the hands of lower and middle income workers, which happen to be the bulk of the populace and the ones who actually purchase the bulk of goods and services, you expand the economy. Those at the top reap the benefits as their business increase in revenue and profit. It's win win for everyone. Of course, it is easily possible to take the scenario too far, as in the way of Marxism. That does not work as it just makes everyone poor.

The thing is that there would not have to be any redistribution of wealth if employers spread the wealth a bit themselves through better pay and benefits. Getting super wealthy at the expense of everyone else does not benefit anyone in the long run, yet greed seems to lead us down this path over and over again. It is one of the pitfalls of capitalism. That is not to say we should move away from capitalism, but we should be aware that sometimes constraints are necessary.

Who decides what "enough" is? That's always the rub whenever someone says the rich should just pay more.

Who decides how much we need to run a modern nation? For better or worse, we do. Who decides how progressive our income taxes should be, we also do.

Explain this. In detail. Show how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[Political Junky]

The demise of the middle class began with Reagan.