Comments on: Spreading the Wealth

By: concerned citizen

concerned citizen — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:11:21 +0000

sorry the data is not spoon fed, the factuial evidence is that laws were put into place after the last depression to regulate the banking industry, these laws put specific definitions on who a bank could loan to and in what percent range depending on what kind of bank it was
the banking industry hated this
they lobbied to remove these restrictions
they found a sympathetic ear with the regan adminsitration (can't regulate the free market - nope nope..)
and had these restrictions removed
banks started making bad loans
backed by insurance that was no good also
800+ billion dollars later given to wall street for losing the money in the first place, rich people (those making more than 250k a year) are whining about having to pay taxes on their income
calling it socialism and saying spreading the wealth is a bad idea
we have had years of voodoo trickle down economics that have been proven not to work
the Median Household Income in the USA in 2006 was $48,000
half of the us population made less, half made more
which breaks down roughly as:
Household income distribution
Bottom 10% $0 to $10,500
Bottom 20% $0 to $18,500
Bottom 25% $0 to $22,500
Middle 33% $30,000 to $62,500
Middle 20% $35,000 to $55,000
Top 25% $77,500 and up
Top 20% $92,000 and up
Top 5% $167,000 and up
Top 1.5% $250,000 and up
Top 1% $350,000 and up

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2006; income statistics for the year 2005

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to an increase of 69% for the top quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.[20] For the same time span the aggregate share of after-tax income held by the top percentile increased from 7.5% to 14%

"Aron-Dine, A. & Sherman, A. (January 23, 2007). New CBO Data Show Income Inequality Continues to Widen: After-tax-income for Top 1 Percent Rose by $146,000 in 2004.". Retrieved on 2007-11-24.

Obama's 'spread the wealth' will affect the top 1.5%
who can afford it...
and lower the income tax on the bottom 75% (those that make enough to pay)
this is not socialism
it is Strong Regulated Capitalism

By: concerned citizen

concerned citizen — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:11:21 +0000

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:39:27 +0000

Let me get this straight, the Republicans held the presidency for the last 8 years and congress for 6 out of 8 years yet the Democrats are 100% responsible for what happened?

Can the Republicans ever take any responsibility for anything?

The sub prime melt down was all related to Bush's "ownership society" where his administration pushed home ownership beyond reason. Of-course people themselves are to blame for letting their neighbors and countless mortgage brokers in talking them into buying something they could never afford.

By: Mike aka policy wonk

Mike aka policy wonk — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:57:56 +0000

Boomer - you are just another angry Repug.

Obama has a solidly centrist, pro-trade group of advisors, and would be anything but radical in economic policy.

According to George Will:

"Goolsbee no doubt has lots of dubious ideas--he is, after all, a Democrat--about how government can creatively fiddle with the market's allocation of wealth and opportunity. But he seems to be the sort of person--amiable, empirical and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be."

And this:

"Jason Furman, the director of economic policy for the Obama campaign, was head of the Hamilton Project, a centrist, pro-trade policy research group founded by former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin. Furman can best be described as a free trader who supports a robust social insurance safety net for displaced American workers. He favors broadening the U.S. corporate tax base by lowering the corporate tax rate and limiting exemptions, à la Reagan's 1986 tax reform. Most interesting, Furman wrote a 2005 paper arguing that Wal-Mart's low prices and other policies benefit low-income consumers. On the left side of the spectrum, Furman strongly supports universal health care, opposes Social Security privatization, and supports progressive taxation."

These are his senior, FULLTIME economic policy advisers. And by the way, back in the 80's conservatives rightfully pointed to the Laffer Curve arguing cuts in the tax rate actually increase revenue collected. We did not know where we were on the curve. Evidence is now that we are beyond optimal, and further cuts in tax rate result in reductions of revenue.

Government should be run by the best and brightest.

By: concerned citizen

concerned citizen — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:43:34 +0000

the Dems are not fully responsible, the GOP is just as guilty, it is Greed all of the way around
do some research
look up
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933
this was put into place to prevent the exact melt down we are having and it was systematically taken apart first by the regan administration and then finally by a republican senate in 1999
look up the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act passed in 1980,
the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act deregulating the Savings and Loan industry in 1982,
and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.
The banking and Insurance industries don't care what kind of politician they are buying as long as they pass laws in their favor
if a few Democrats made a profit off of it they were just standing in line
well regulated capitalism is NOT socialism
selling our country to foreign investors and continuing Deficit Spending as a national policy is suicidal

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:58:41 +0000

good point…wait…there's is no factual evidence at all here!

By: boomer

boomer — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:32:50 +0000

You're a complete moron. The DEMS are 100% responsible for the sub prime melt down that's caused that house and many others to be abandoned.
The likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and of course Obama's good friend Raines (Fannie Mae- 6 yrs and he took 90 million bucks from that) running Fannie into the ground.
Spreading the wealty is Socialism and it DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!
Your thinking is totally warped by the MSM!