HUFFINGTON POST Article

Must make the Libs on here shit their pants.

Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama Than Under Bush
The rich took home a greater share of America's income pie from 2009 to 2010 than they did between 2002 and 2007, according to an April analysis from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. That means the gap between the rich and the poor was more pronounced under Obama's presidency than under George W. Bush's.
What the hell is going on in Washington?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...#slide=1468003

Must make the Libs on here shit their pants.

Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama Than Under Bush
The rich took home a greater share of America's income pie from 2009 to 2010 than they did between 2002 and 2007, according to an April analysis from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. That means the gap between the rich and the poor was more pronounced under Obama's presidency than under George W. Bush's.
What the hell is going on in Washington?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...#slide=1468003 Originally Posted by steamyromance

It is to be expected. The recession his the poor worse than the rich. Nothing new there.

I have determined that economic factors and subsequent results can not be debated. It is impossible to show any proof that to have done something a different way would have produced a better result since you can not get a repeat of the exact economic factors. The economy is to grandiose to get any repeatability.

It is to be expected. The recession his the poor worse than the rich. Nothing new there. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Simple logical response.

Why can't people use that same logic to realize that taxing the rich will also end up on the backs of the lower income people. Until they realize that focusing on increasing domestic economic activity and reducing government spending the lower income groups will continue to be screwed.

Simple logical response.

Why can't people use that same logic to realize that taxing the rich will also end up on the backs of the lower income people. Until they realize that focusing on increasing domestic economic activity and reducing government spending the lower income groups will continue to be screwed. Originally Posted by Laz

All well and good in theory. The devil is in the implementation. To tell someone "trust me, you're kids will be better off in 20 years, but in the mean time they have to live in a box and beg for food" is a tough sell. But it is the essential result of some of the more poorly thought out proposals.

The problem the fiscal conservatives have is convincing the people at the bottom--and even the middle--that the pain of fixing things will not be shared somewhat equitably. What is "equitable" to a person with a job, grown kids, and a hefty 401K doesn't seem equitable to a person working a job and a half as well as raising their grandkids--and being told that they are a drain on society because the grandkids might qualify for food stamps.

In politics, perception is reality most the time.

Well said Old-T

It reminds me of the cognitive reflection test I read about.

http://www.dynamist.com/articles-spe...cognition.html

All well and good in theory. The devil is in the implementation. To tell someone "trust me, you're kids will be better off in 20 years, but in the mean time they have to live in a box and beg for food" is a tough sell. But it is the essential result of some of the more poorly thought out proposals.

The problem the fiscal conservatives have is convincing the people at the bottom--and even the middle--that the pain of fixing things will not be shared somewhat equitably. What is "equitable" to a person with a job, grown kids, and a hefty 401K doesn't seem equitable to a person working a job and a half as well as raising their grandkids--and being told that they are a drain on society because the grandkids might qualify for food stamps.

In politics, perception is reality most the time. Originally Posted by Old-T

I understand, OldT, which is a good argument for doing away with the income tax altogether. All the income tax does is make enemies among the classes, and politicians exploit those bad feelings for votes. If we implemented the FairTax, the class warfare bullshit would be (almost) gone, the economy would flourish, and we might have a chance at surviving the financial collapse that's coming.

It won't happen. Too many politicians have their hands out, getting paid for including loopholes for their friends. But it is still the best idea out there.

Simple logical response.

Why can't people use that same logic to realize that taxing the rich will also end up on the backs of the lower income people. Until they realize that focusing on increasing domestic economic activity and reducing government spending the lower income groups will continue to be screwed. Originally Posted by Laz

I'd sure like to see some credible stats that support that theory

All well and good in theory. The devil is in the implementation. To tell someone "trust me, you're kids will be better off in 20 years, but in the mean time they have to live in a box and beg for food" is a tough sell. But it is the essential result of some of the more poorly thought out proposals.

The problem the fiscal conservatives have is convincing the people at the bottom--and even the middle--that the pain of fixing things will not be shared somewhat equitably. What is "equitable" to a person with a job, grown kids, and a hefty 401K doesn't seem equitable to a person working a job and a half as well as raising their grandkids--and being told that they are a drain on society because the grandkids might qualify for food stamps.

In politics, perception is reality most the time. Originally Posted by Old-T

You assume that there is not a lot of government spending that can be cut without hurting those in real need. The other half is that increasing economic activity will increase opportunity and reduce the need for government assistance. It can be a cycle that makes everyone better off.

Lets quit wasting money on the war on drugs. Provide affordable training to kids after high school so that they can get good jobs, or better yet implement the voucher system for school so that when they graduate they have a good education. That would allow the feds to get out of subsidizing college and save that money. Streamline federal regulation so that businesses can function with a lower overhead. Cut back on spending money to defend nations that are able to pay their own way. Means test Social Security and Medicare as well as raise the start age. Drill for oil on federal lands. Jobs in the US and more money for the government without having to take from someone else.

Given a little time I have no doubt there are numerous other opportunities to reduce spending that would not affect the needy. Many of those would also improve the business climate in the US so more opportunity would occur. The fair tax is a great example of that.

You assume that there is not a lot of government spending that can be cut without hurting those in real need. The other half is that increasing economic activity will increase opportunity and reduce the need for government assistance. It can be a cycle that makes everyone better off.

Lets quit wasting money on the war on drugs. Provide affordable training to kids after high school so that they can get good jobs, or better yet implement the voucher system for school so that when they graduate they have a good education. That would allow the feds to get out of subsidizing college and save that money. Streamline federal regulation so that businesses can function with a lower overhead. Cut back on spending money to defend nations that are able to pay their own way. Means test Social Security and Medicare as well as raise the start age. Drill for oil on federal lands. Jobs in the US and more money for the government without having to take from someone else.

Given a little time I have no doubt there are numerous other opportunities to reduce spending that would not affect the needy. Many of those would also improve the business climate in the US so more opportunity would occur. The fair tax is a great example of that. Originally Posted by Laz

seems to be a large obsticle for the House rignt now too ... the say spending cuts but wont say what cuts

You assume that there is not a lot of government spending that can be cut without hurting those in real need. Actually no, I very much believe there is government spending that can be cut. What I don't see is the government doing the cutting in the right places. I see Congress--both parties--forcing the military to but expensive toys that DoD has said they don't need, but are produced in certain congressional districts. Bases that are redundant, or just too expensive, that won't be BRACed because of whose district they are in. An intense willingness to spend $100 to quadrupilly check that a federal travel voucher doesn't have $1 more that some bean counter thinks is "fair". Regulations that contradict each other, each with an army of people whose job it is to enforce both regs and make any real work come to a grinding halt. An official timeline that says 7 days are alloted to do what should realisticly be 90 days work, but then 173 days of bureaucratic review process before Congress gets another 120 days; 187 days to review 7 days work! Again, I just don't trust Congress to cut the right stuff. The other half is that increasing economic activity will increase opportunity and reduce the need for government assistance. It can be a cycle that makes everyone better off. Agree, once we get through the transition/withdrawal stage then the majority would be better off.

Lets quit wasting money on the war on drugs. Mostly agree. Treat most of it like tobacco & alchohol. Provide affordable training to kids after high school so that they can get good jobs, or better yet implement the voucher system for school so that when they graduate they have a good education. Pleanty of room for improvement there. That would allow the feds to get out of subsidizing college and save that money. This one I don't put all on the gov't; separate the tasks of research and education. Right now education subsidizes what has become the job of most colleges, research. Also, get to an intelligent approach to special ed. As it stands, huge amounts of $ are spent one students who will never benefit from it, at the expense of the vast majority (not saying all special ed is wrong, but the most expensive parts are generally the leat value), Whether this is best done locally we can argue about--I fear total "localizing" of education will result very quickly is "seperate but equal". Streamline federal regulation so that businesses can function with a lower overhead. Again, the other half is it must be done right. Streamline, yes. Eliminate duplication, contradictory, and unnecessary, yes. Defining what is "unnecessary" is the tricky part. Cut back on spending money to defend nations that are able to pay their own way. Means test Social Security and Medicare as well as raise the start age. Another one of those "transition" problems. Means testing is good theory, but to dump that on a 60 y/o who had trusted the current rules as they planned for retirement would be unfair. But yes, increase the retirement age, and implement the means testing over a "reasonable" amount of time. I'm not smart enough to know what a reasonable amount of time is, but it can be worked. The problem I see with this one is both parties refuse to stand together and depoliticise it. If they BOTH told AARP, etc., "Here's what we are doing for the good of the country", it would work. In todays "Win/Lose" politics I don't see that happening--each side would deamonize the other for "attacking seniors!" Drill for oil on federal lands. Jobs in the US and more money for the government without having to take from someone else. Within reason. Energy and environment are both important. It seems neither side wants ballance on this, each (as they have with almost everything) has gone to one extreme of the argument or the other.

Given a little time I have no doubt there are numerous other opportunities to reduce spending that would not affect the needy. Many of those would also improve the business climate in the US so more opportunity would occur. The fair tax is a great example of that. Originally Posted by Laz

.

Sounds like we mostly agree. You are right that the biggest barrier to any of this is the same group that is expected to fix it... Congress.

As for fairness on social security and medicare changes that opportunity left 30 years or more ago. I would means test existing seniors as well as future. It is not fair but I am talking about seniors with good incomes from other sources not people barely getting by. I cannot see how it is fair to tax a family struggling to get by while raising kids to pay benefits for seniors who are far better off. It is about picking the lessor of two evils.

Excellent and civil discussion, Laz and OldT. It can be done! Many good points. The only thing I would add is that in order to end the polarization in Congress, we need to eliminate the income tax. The major parties continue to use the tax code to protect and enrich their friends. It won't happen, so we're stuck with what we have. But I enjoyed your discussion, and have very little to add or criticize. Impressive!

Excellent and civil discussion, Laz and OldT. It can be done! Many good points. The only thing I would add is that in order to end the polarization in Congress, we need to eliminate the income tax. The major parties continue to use the tax code to protect and enrich their friends. It won't happen, so we're stuck with what we have. But I enjoyed your discussion, and have very little to add or criticize. Impressive! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

in 2010 income tax made up 40% of our revenue .. how will you replace 40%

uh huh, I see.

COF has nothing

Obie lied, income tax, TSA, Government, Obamatron ...

repeat 100 times daily