protests on Wall Street

[Guest Patriot]

That is absolutely false. The "bottom" 47%, as you put it, pay sales and property taxes. When you factor those two taxes in, their share of the total tax bill rises. So you should stop getting your "information" from right wing propaganda sources.

Dummy, we're talking about federal income taxes, everyone pays an equal amount of sales and property taxes according to the value of the item or property. 47% of the lowest income earners pay no federal income tax. Got it??

[Guest Guest]

Dummy, we're talking about federal income taxes, everyone pays an equal amount of sales and property taxes according to the value of the item or property. 47% of the lowest income earners pay no federal income tax. Got it??

I got it but that is not what you wrote. It's also not true that everyone pays an equal amount of sales and property taxes. People who don't own property don't pay property taxes either, and there are tens of millions of them.

Leave it to you to ignore the point. You have to consider how much people are earning and how much wealth they have accumulated. It makes all the difference. See the next post.

[Guest Guest]

America was built upon the capitalist free enterprise system. It doesn't matter how much wealth is controlled by the "wealthy". Wealth is an incentive to become educated and work harder to become one of the wealthy. In this society there are winners and losers, not everyone will be successful. Some will become CEO's, some will flip hamburgers, it doesn't mean the hamburger flippers should get some of the CEO's money. That's exactly why we're 15 trillion in debt, all the entitlements being given to the lazy, the drug addicts, alcoholics, serial baby breeders, illegal aliens, etc. etc. etc.

Greece and Italy are perfect examples of the society you apparently like along with zerO. If you're dependent upon handouts from zerO you're not one of the winners and that's too bad.

You're an ideologue. You see things in absolutes. That is not how things work, especially in economics. Let's take your uninformed remarks one by one.

Of course it matters how much of the wealth is controlled by a few, whether it be 1% or 3% or 5% or .1%. To understand how absurd your comment is, consider what would happen if the top 1% owned all the wealth. The economy would collapse long before it got to that, because there would be no consumer demand. What has in fact happened is just a lesser version of that. It's unfathomable how you can make such an idiotic remark as to say that wealth stratification doesn't matter.

Test the proposition. Name one example of a prosperous country where the top 1% control 60% of the wealth. You can't because there aren't any. There can't be. By definition, if 1% own everything, then 99% have nothing. Use your freaking brain, if you have one.

Corporate CEOs have been accumulating vast holdings of wealth in these past few decades. Their incomes relative to the incomes of average workers have skyrocketed. It's not because they've become more productive; it's because the game has been rigged to favor the rich at everyone else's expense. As they've gained more and more control of the political system, the problem has continued to get worse. Tax policies have also been rigged to ensure that the rich keep a greater share of their wealth than the average person. It's not because tax shelters for the rich are good for the economy; it's because they had the political clout to get those shelters enacted. Consider hedge fund managers. They add nothing of value to the economy. Yet they're making vast fortunes, aided by laws that were designed for the sole purpose of helping them make money. Not only have they not helped the economy, they've destabilized it. They are examples of capitalism run amok.

Consider the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. That law helped rein in banking excesses since 1932. Congress repealed it in the 1990s and Clinton signed the repeal - shame on him. That repeal opened the door to the speculative boom that nearly brought down the economy in 2008. If you don't understand that, you cannot comment intelligently on the American economy. And clearly, you don't understand it.

Wealth SHOULD be an incentive to become educated and work harder. But to do what? Obviously, there have to be limits. For example, Bernie Madoff was highly educated in making financial deals and he worked very hard essentially stealing billions of dollars. He meets both your criteria but he's not an example of capitalist virtue, he's a convicted felon who ruined the lives of many people. Should we eliminate the laws making his behavior illegal? That's the logical extension of what you're saying. And of course, you don't see why that's true. But it is true.

As for entitlements, we have a choice. The main entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps you would prefer that senior citizens, who no longer have the ability to earn a living, should be left alone without medical care, adequate shelter or adequate food. That's how it was once. We decided that we didn't want to live like that. But then we failed to plan for what we knew was coming. We knew that the baby boomers - the children born between 1947 and 1964 - were going to put a drain on the economy when they entered retirement age. Meanwhile, medical care has improved and people are living longer, and consuming more health care. A person born in 1947 is now 64 years old. For the next fifteen to twenty years, we are going to have to figure out how to address the needs of a large population of elderly people. We knew it was coming but we failed to plan for it. Sure, we could eliminate the deficit by abolishing Social Security and Medicare. But if we do that, the elderly are going to suffer and die. Would you prefer that? It's easy for you to complain, but where's your solution to a very real problem?

Apparently you haven't noticed that Greece and Italy are two of the most right-leaning economies in Europe. Sweden isn't having an internal crisis, and their social welfare system is far more generous than in Greece and Italy. Read Paul Krugman's excellent analysis. If you were correct, Sweden's economy would have fallen. Instead, two economies far to the right of Sweden have collapsed. So as usual, you right wing ideologues have drawn your conclusions with a complete disregard for the facts.

Do you really want to talk about undeserved entitlements? Consider the tax subsidies to the oil companies, which are making record profits at our expense. Consider the trillion dollars we spent fighting an unjustified war in Iraq to help out oil companies and Haliburton. Then consider the additional cost of eliminating Iran's main threat in the region, and the threat now posed by an Iran that is threatening to become nuclear-capable. It's all a product of focusing too exclusively on short-term profits without considering the bigger picture. Consider how we've ignored the need for energy development for decades so the oil companies could continue to make obscene profits. That's why we're in debt. We failed to plan intelligently for what anyone who was looking could see coming for decades. It never ceases to amaze how you trailer-trash right wingers let your petty jealousies trump your common sense. You think your problem is some poor schlub who maybe games the system for a few dollars, when the real problem is the fat cats who are effectively stealing trillions of dollars from the economy, and restructuring the capitalist system so that it rewards making money instead of work, innovation and value added to the economy. You don't think these things through. Just because someone is making money doesn't mean they're doing something useful - again, think Madoff.

As for immigrants, give me a break. They've been allowed to stay because they work dirt cheap. They're not the problem. Your wallet has been picked by the wealthy and privileged and all you can think to complain about is the spare change.

[Guest Guest]

That's exactly why we're 15 trillion in debt . . .

You are a complete idiot. Clinton balanced the budget and put us on a path to pay off the national debt. We could certainly have paid off our foreign debt.

But apparently the people didn't like fiscal solvency so they voted in Bush II, who cut taxes for the rich and further deregulated the economy. As a result, the economy nearly collapsed, so now we have to do emergency spending to keep from falling off the cliff. And of course, idiots like you blame the guy who inherited the mess.

You are a complete idiot.

[Guest Guest]

You're an ideologue. You see things in absolutes. That is not how things work, especially in economics. Let's take your uninformed remarks one by one.

Of course it matters how much of the wealth is controlled by a few, whether it be 1% or 3% or 5% or .1%. To understand how absurd your comment is, consider what would happen if the top 1% owned all the wealth. The economy would collapse long before it got to that, because there would be no consumer demand. What has in fact happened is just a lesser version of that. It's unfathomable how you can make such an idiotic remark as to say that wealth stratification doesn't matter.

Test the proposition. Name one example of a prosperous country where the top 1% control 60% of the wealth. You can't because there aren't any. There can't be. By definition, if 1% own everything, then 99% have nothing. Use your freaking brain, if you have one.

Corporate CEOs have been accumulating vast holdings of wealth in these past few decades. Their incomes relative to the incomes of average workers have skyrocketed. It's not because they've become more productive; it's because the game has been rigged to favor the rich at everyone else's expense. As they've gained more and more control of the political system, the problem has continued to get worse. Tax policies have also been rigged to ensure that the rich keep a greater share of their wealth than the average person. It's not because tax shelters for the rich are good for the economy; it's because they had the political clout to get those shelters enacted. Consider hedge fund managers. They add nothing of value to the economy. Yet they're making vast fortunes, aided by laws that were designed for the sole purpose of helping them make money. Not only have they not helped the economy, they've destabilized it. They are examples of capitalism run amok.

Consider the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. That law helped rein in banking excesses since 1932. Congress repealed it in the 1990s and Clinton signed the repeal - shame on him. That repeal opened the door to the speculative boom that nearly brought down the economy in 2008. If you don't understand that, you cannot comment intelligently on the American economy. And clearly, you don't understand it.

Wealth SHOULD be an incentive to become educated and work harder. But to do what? Obviously, there have to be limits. For example, Bernie Madoff was highly educated in making financial deals and he worked very hard essentially stealing billions of dollars. He meets both your criteria but he's not an example of capitalist virtue, he's a convicted felon who ruined the lives of many people. Should we eliminate the laws making his behavior illegal? That's the logical extension of what you're saying. And of course, you don't see why that's true. But it is true.

As for entitlements, we have a choice. The main entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps you would prefer that senior citizens, who no longer have the ability to earn a living, should be left alone without medical care, adequate shelter or adequate food. That's how it was once. We decided that we didn't want to live like that. But then we failed to plan for what we knew was coming. We knew that the baby boomers - the children born between 1947 and 1964 - were going to put a drain on the economy when they entered retirement age. Meanwhile, medical care has improved and people are living longer, and consuming more health care. A person born in 1947 is now 64 years old. For the next fifteen to twenty years, we are going to have to figure out how to address the needs of a large population of elderly people. We knew it was coming but we failed to plan for it. Sure, we could eliminate the deficit by abolishing Social Security and Medicare. But if we do that, the elderly are going to suffer and die. Would you prefer that? It's easy for you to complain, but where's your solution to a very real problem?

Apparently you haven't noticed that Greece and Italy are two of the most right-leaning economies in Europe. Sweden isn't having an internal crisis, and their social welfare system is far more generous than in Greece and Italy. Read Paul Krugman's excellent analysis. If you were correct, Sweden's economy would have fallen. Instead, two economies far to the right of Sweden have collapsed. So as usual, you right wing ideologues have drawn your conclusions with a complete disregard for the facts.

Do you really want to talk about undeserved entitlements? Consider the tax subsidies to the oil companies, which are making record profits at our expense. Consider the trillion dollars we spent fighting an unjustified war in Iraq to help out oil companies and Haliburton. Then consider the additional cost of eliminating Iran's main threat in the region, and the threat now posed by an Iran that is threatening to become nuclear-capable. It's all a product of focusing too exclusively on short-term profits without considering the bigger picture. Consider how we've ignored the need for energy development for decades so the oil companies could continue to make obscene profits. That's why we're in debt. We failed to plan intelligently for what anyone who was looking could see coming for decades. It never ceases to amaze how you trailer-trash right wingers let your petty jealousies trump your common sense. You think your problem is some poor schlub who maybe games the system for a few dollars, when the real problem is the fat cats who are effectively stealing trillions of dollars from the economy, and restructuring the capitalist system so that it rewards making money instead of work, innovation and value added to the economy. You don't think these things through. Just because someone is making money doesn't mean they're doing something useful - again, think Madoff.

As for immigrants, give me a break. They've been allowed to stay because they work dirt cheap. They're not the problem. Your wallet has been picked by the wealthy and privileged and all you can think to complain about is the spare change.

The knuckle-draggers like PatRat, a/k/a 2Stupid4Words, don't understand 5% of this.

[Guest Guest]

You're an ideologue. You see things in absolutes. That is not how things work, especially in economics. Let's take your uninformed remarks one by one.

Of course it matters how much of the wealth is controlled by a few, whether it be 1% or 3% or 5% or .1%. To understand how absurd your comment is, consider what would happen if the top 1% owned all the wealth. The economy would collapse long before it got to that, because there would be no consumer demand. What has in fact happened is just a lesser version of that. It's unfathomable how you can make such an idiotic remark as to say that wealth stratification doesn't matter.

Test the proposition. Name one example of a prosperous country where the top 1% control 60% of the wealth. You can't because there aren't any. There can't be. By definition, if 1% own everything, then 99% have nothing. Use your freaking brain, if you have one.

Corporate CEOs have been accumulating vast holdings of wealth in these past few decades. Their incomes relative to the incomes of average workers have skyrocketed. It's not because they've become more productive; it's because the game has been rigged to favor the rich at everyone else's expense. As they've gained more and more control of the political system, the problem has continued to get worse. Tax policies have also been rigged to ensure that the rich keep a greater share of their wealth than the average person. It's not because tax shelters for the rich are good for the economy; it's because they had the political clout to get those shelters enacted. Consider hedge fund managers. They add nothing of value to the economy. Yet they're making vast fortunes, aided by laws that were designed for the sole purpose of helping them make money. Not only have they not helped the economy, they've destabilized it. They are examples of capitalism run amok.

Consider the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. That law helped rein in banking excesses since 1932. Congress repealed it in the 1990s and Clinton signed the repeal - shame on him. That repeal opened the door to the speculative boom that nearly brought down the economy in 2008. If you don't understand that, you cannot comment intelligently on the American economy. And clearly, you don't understand it.

Wealth SHOULD be an incentive to become educated and work harder. But to do what? Obviously, there have to be limits. For example, Bernie Madoff was highly educated in making financial deals and he worked very hard essentially stealing billions of dollars. He meets both your criteria but he's not an example of capitalist virtue, he's a convicted felon who ruined the lives of many people. Should we eliminate the laws making his behavior illegal? That's the logical extension of what you're saying. And of course, you don't see why that's true. But it is true.

As for entitlements, we have a choice. The main entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps you would prefer that senior citizens, who no longer have the ability to earn a living, should be left alone without medical care, adequate shelter or adequate food. That's how it was once. We decided that we didn't want to live like that. But then we failed to plan for what we knew was coming. We knew that the baby boomers - the children born between 1947 and 1964 - were going to put a drain on the economy when they entered retirement age. Meanwhile, medical care has improved and people are living longer, and consuming more health care. A person born in 1947 is now 64 years old. For the next fifteen to twenty years, we are going to have to figure out how to address the needs of a large population of elderly people. We knew it was coming but we failed to plan for it. Sure, we could eliminate the deficit by abolishing Social Security and Medicare. But if we do that, the elderly are going to suffer and die. Would you prefer that? It's easy for you to complain, but where's your solution to a very real problem?

Apparently you haven't noticed that Greece and Italy are two of the most right-leaning economies in Europe. Sweden isn't having an internal crisis, and their social welfare system is far more generous than in Greece and Italy. Read Paul Krugman's excellent analysis. If you were correct, Sweden's economy would have fallen. Instead, two economies far to the right of Sweden have collapsed. So as usual, you right wing ideologues have drawn your conclusions with a complete disregard for the facts.

Do you really want to talk about undeserved entitlements? Consider the tax subsidies to the oil companies, which are making record profits at our expense. Consider the trillion dollars we spent fighting an unjustified war in Iraq to help out oil companies and Haliburton. Then consider the additional cost of eliminating Iran's main threat in the region, and the threat now posed by an Iran that is threatening to become nuclear-capable. It's all a product of focusing too exclusively on short-term profits without considering the bigger picture. Consider how we've ignored the need for energy development for decades so the oil companies could continue to make obscene profits. That's why we're in debt. We failed to plan intelligently for what anyone who was looking could see coming for decades. It never ceases to amaze how you trailer-trash right wingers let your petty jealousies trump your common sense. You think your problem is some poor schlub who maybe games the system for a few dollars, when the real problem is the fat cats who are effectively stealing trillions of dollars from the economy, and restructuring the capitalist system so that it rewards making money instead of work, innovation and value added to the economy. You don't think these things through. Just because someone is making money doesn't mean they're doing something useful - again, think Madoff.

As for immigrants, give me a break. They've been allowed to stay because they work dirt cheap. They're not the problem. Your wallet has been picked by the wealthy and privileged and all you can think to complain about is the spare change.

No answer to this. Apparently the knuckle-draggers are still reading it.

[Guest Guest]

The facts are:

Income inequality in after-tax income has progressed geometrically since Reagan took office in 1980. Look at the chart. Clinton started bringing it under control (and balanced the budget) but Bush reversed the trend and sent the debt through the ceiling to give tax cuts to his rich friends who bankrolled his campaign. Since then the real after-tax income of the top 1% has nearly doubled while everyone else stayed stagnant.

If you knew anything about the subject, you would realize that the rich pay a greater share of the national tax bill because they make more money. By your "analysis," if you call it that, if a fat cat pays double the taxes this year as compared with last year, that proves that everything's just fine; but it's not because you have to account for his income. If he's making ten times more than before, then he's still making a killing. For example, a corporate executive making $20 million a year is earning 1,000 times what a person earns who makes $20 thousand. You have to look at wealth, not just tax rates and not just which segment pays what share. The United States' Gini coefficient, which measures wealth maldistribution, is higher than in all but four other countries. The percentage of wealth controlled by the top 1% is the highest since 1928, the year before the Great Depression began. The rich are making a killing here because they've gained control of the political system, with help from knuckle-draggers like you who don't have the brains to understand that you're being shafted.

The United States economy boomed from the end of World War II until the 1970s when the effects of foreign oil began to be felt. During those years, tax rates for the upper few percent were much higher than now and income inequalities were more reasonable. Equally or more important, people were getting rich by contributing to the economy, such as in manufacturing. Since the early 1980s, the game has been systematically rigged so that a few well-leveraged people can make money with money. That's OK to a point but it's out of control - and you keep voting for the people who made it that way.

You don't cite any sources for your false claims that Republicans haven't blocked recent jobs bills. Here are a few sources

the facts. Obviously, you're the one who needs to do some reading.

How do you like those facts, Knuckle-Dragger?

No response from the knuckle-draggers.

[Guest Dr. Feelgood]

No response from the knuckle-draggers.

Easy buddy. Put the Kool-Aid down and step away from the ledge.