[that helps raise the standard of living, increase employment and wages.

The ones at the top have actually recovered everything, and then some. Why should they care about the ones below them?

Let's not carry on like the top 1% are trying to act on some noble cause of improving our society but are being hindered by certain politicians you don't like.

I agree. But by the same token, we shouldn't automatically mark them down as selfish and hording cash just out of greed, and not re-investing at the rate some would prefer. They didn't get rich making stupid moves, and if parking money on the sidelines for a while is the smart play that's probably where it's going to sit. That's not greed, that's just good sense.

Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!

Yup.

The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.

Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?

Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?

_______________________________________________________________________

Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.

Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.

For a high information voter, you must not pay much attention during any sort of budget talks, such as these re-occurring debt ceiling debates.

What are you going to do confiscate their wealth and have the former middle class gather and throw cash out for them to grab? That's not how it works. The left wants everyone to focus on hatred and resentment of the wealthy because it lets everyone ignore the fact that socialistic policies actually do NOTHING to grow the middle class or help the poor or anything else. Liberal economic policies that favor free enterprise and competition and reward risk taking help them. As well as the wealthy.

This is a complete chicken-or-the-egg scenario. There is no downside for a wealthy person to keep all of their money. None. If the money funnels up and stays there, no I'm-gonna-call-you-all-communists-whenever-I-want diatribes are gonna change that.

What about opportunity costs? They could be launching a new airline or department store chain to make even MORE money. What would stop them?

Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!

Yup.

The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.

Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?

Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?

_______________________________________________________________________

Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.

Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.

For a high information voter, you must not pay much attention during any sort of budget talks, such as these re-occurring debt ceiling debates.

Oh I pay attention. It seems to me that the only time the Republicans care about the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in office. Maybe if revenue was a little higher we wouldn't need debt ceiling talks quit so often. There are two sides to budget talks after all.

Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!

Yup.

The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.

Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?

Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?

_______________________________________________________________________

Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.

Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.

For a high information voter, you must not pay much attention during any sort of budget talks, such as these re-occurring debt ceiling debates.

Oh I pay attention. It seems to me that the only time the Republicans care about the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in office. Maybe if revenue was a little higher we wouldn't need debt ceiling talks quit so often. There are two sides to budget talks after all.

The National Debt has almost DOUBLED since the Republicans asked for a debt limit increase. Keeping your head buried in the past does nothing for the future.

There is nothing that gives anyone the slightest inclination that the Democrats care about spending. NOTHING. Some have even been out insisting that we don't have a spending problem. Now, that's flat out scary.

Revenues are already at record highs and we're still running a half a Trillion dollar deficit. You don't see a problem?

Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!

Yup.

The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.

Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?

Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?

_______________________________________________________________________

Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.

Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.

For a high information voter, you must not pay much attention during any sort of budget talks, such as these re-occurring debt ceiling debates.

Oh I pay attention. It seems to me that the only time the Republicans care about the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in office. Maybe if revenue was a little higher we wouldn't need debt ceiling talks quit so often. There are two sides to budget talks after all.

The National Debt has almost DOUBLED since the Republicans asked for a debt limit increase. Keeping your head buried in the past does nothing for the future.

There is nothing that gives anyone the slightest inclination that the Democrats care about spending. NOTHING. Some have even been out insisting that we don't have a spending problem. Now, that's flat out scary.

Revenues are already at record highs and we're still running a half a Trillion dollar deficit. You don't see a problem?

Sorry, but revenue is not at a record high. Go look at the chart I posted at the beginning of this thread. I really don't see either party caring enough about spending. Republicans say they do until they get in office and then they spend like a drunken sailor. Both parties sucks at spending, but it seems like the Republicans suck at it more, they just won't admit it. They have never seen a military spending bill they didn't want to add to (except caring for veterans). Government spending has increased under every Republican administration greater than it has under Democratic administrations. That is 100% FACT!!! The only difference is that the Republicans for some reason believe that cutting taxes is somehow going to lower the deficit. Not going to happen ever! Sorry!

Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?

Anybody?

Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.

If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth... This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?

I would guess that investments have something to do with it. A one percenter with $15,000,000 in stocks paying an average dividend is looking at about $275,000 a year in dividend income. Just run of the mill bond fund will provide over $300,000 on that principal.

That has been going on all along. How does that account for the redistribution of wealth since 2000?

The very term "re-distribution of wealth" is false. It makes no sense. It has no meaning. It is a socialist/marxist assumption that there is X amount of wealth that needs to be fairly distributed. That's nonsense. As I've pointed out. The American economy has grown exponentially in the past hundred years even taking into account depressions and recessions. It is this growth that has enabled the United States to support an ever growing population that has basically doubled in that time as well as a standard of living that even the poor enjoy that Kings couldn't have imagined.

First of all, if you think the poor in this country are living better than kings you need to get out more. Secondly, when I was a kid there were almost no two income middle class families. Now middle class status is very difficult to achieve without two incomes. If the wealth is infinite and has not been redistributed then there has at least been a change in the distribution of the wealth. Wages have been stagnant for years while worker productivity has increased. The middle class is shrinking, poverty rates are increasing, and the top 1% continues to garner larger portions of the wealth. They are not "holding onto their money", they are acquiring more, while the rest of the population acquires less, and not because of their lack of effort. Zero interest rates have fueled a grand stock market boom, but haven't helped mom and pop much. Unemployment is back around 5%, but we all know that is nowhere near a true reflection of what is going on and certainly does not reflect the great numbers of people who are making much less than they were 10 years ago, before the crash and bailouts. You can use whatever terms you want to describe these things, but they remain true. I'n not saying anyone is evil here, but I'm beginning to wonder if this may be the inevitable outcome of our form of capitalism. I'm beginning to read about rumblings regarding another possible crash coming in the not so distant future, citing the recent bull market as a possible bubble. Time will tell, but centralization of wealth and power at the exclusion of the majority is a recipe for disaster in any society. Having those who prize the generation and accumulation of wealth in charge of everything may not benefit our nation as a whole in the long run. I'm beginning to think we need another component to our system of checks and balances.

Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!

Yup.

The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.

Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?

Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?

_______________________________________________________________________

Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.

Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.

For a high information voter, you must not pay much attention during any sort of budget talks, such as these re-occurring debt ceiling debates.

Oh I pay attention. It seems to me that the only time the Republicans care about the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in office. Maybe if revenue was a little higher we wouldn't need debt ceiling talks quit so often. There are two sides to budget talks after all.

The National Debt has almost DOUBLED since the Republicans asked for a debt limit increase. Keeping your head buried in the past does nothing for the future.

There is nothing that gives anyone the slightest inclination that the Democrats care about spending. NOTHING. Some have even been out insisting that we don't have a spending problem. Now, that's flat out scary.

Revenues are already at record highs and we're still running a half a Trillion dollar deficit. You don't see a problem?

Sorry, but revenue is not at a record high.

Tax revenue most certainly is at record highs. FY 2014 marked the first time ever that revenues exceeded $3 Trillion at $3.02 Trillion, and is expected to rise to $3.17 Trillion for FY 2015. You're worried about the wrong side of the equation.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

[Edited on 9/18/2015 by alloak41]

Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!

Yup.

The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.

Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?

Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?

_______________________________________________________________________

Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.

Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.

For a high information voter, you must not pay much attention during any sort of budget talks, such as these re-occurring debt ceiling debates.

Oh I pay attention. It seems to me that the only time the Republicans care about the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in office. Maybe if revenue was a little higher we wouldn't need debt ceiling talks quit so often. There are two sides to budget talks after all.

The National Debt has almost DOUBLED since the Republicans asked for a debt limit increase. Keeping your head buried in the past does nothing for the future.

There is nothing that gives anyone the slightest inclination that the Democrats care about spending. NOTHING. Some have even been out insisting that we don't have a spending problem. Now, that's flat out scary.

Revenues are already at record highs and we're still running a half a Trillion dollar deficit. You don't see a problem?

Sorry, but revenue is not at a record high.

Tax revenue most certainly is at record highs. FY 2014 marked the first time ever that revenues exceeded $3 Trillion at $3.02 Trillion, and is expected to rise to $3.17 Trillion for FY 2015. You're worried about the wrong side of the equation.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

He is, of course, talking about tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, which is a much more accurate reflection of the true level of revenue.

[that helps raise the standard of living, increase employment and wages.

The ones at the top have actually recovered everything, and then some. Why should they care about the ones below them?

Let's not carry on like the top 1% are trying to act on some noble cause of improving our society but are being hindered by certain politicians you don't like.

I agree. But by the same token, we shouldn't automatically mark them down as selfish and hording cash just out of greed, and not re-investing at the rate some would prefer. They didn't get rich making stupid moves, and if parking money on the sidelines for a while is the smart play that's probably where it's going to sit. That's not greed, that's just good sense.

You realize you are trying to fight off stereotypes by using stereotypes?

The money went to China.

Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?

Anybody?

Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.

If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth while the middle class shrinks and poverty levels rise? This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?

I explained it in a prior post. They are given disincentives to do the things that help grow the private economy, the ONLY thing that helps raise the standard of living, increase employment and wages.

The ones at the top have actually recovered everything, and then some. Why should they care about the ones below them?

Let's not carry on like the top 1% are trying to act on some noble cause of improving our society but are being hindered by certain politicians you don't like.

There's nothing "noble" about it. It's based on rational behavior. It's the left that attacks the "one percent" and businesses for not being "noble" All any on the other side have ever said is that people and companies will behave rationally meaning do what is in their self-interest. Government's too do what is in their self interest and don't typically behave in ways that are noble. It so happens that the "one percent" contribute billions and billions to private charities. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the best way to lift people out of poverty and above. The best way is to provide business the incentive to do what it generally seeks to do which is to grow and expand. When this is rewarded it tends to happen and society wins. Of course there will always be setbacks and failures and "creative destruction" that will negatively affect individual lives. Government can help those people recover. But because there are setbacks and failures is no reaosn to get rid of the system that has done more to benefit human happiness than any other in human history. We are not talking about providing social welfare benefits for those in need. The term"redistribution" is being discussed. That is not social democracy. That is marxism. It is not only morally wrong but economically disastrous.

[Edited on 9/18/2015 by dougrhon]

The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.

Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.

These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?

In the larger scheme we are still doing well compared to the rest of the world and the rest of humanity going back to all time. GBy our own moder standards and the standard of our potential we are not. But the reason is not because evil plutocrats are stealing all the wealth.

So, we are doing better than the rest of humanity in the history of humanity, and it's still not enough?

When will it be?

Furthermore, since we are doing better than the rest of humanity in the history of humanity, why are you complaining about anemic economies? All time best ever in the history of ever is pretty impressive.

Because

1. We want our country to be able to support an ever expanding pot of people and cannot without growth.
2. The American people both right and left are not satisfied with the state of things but the left wants to kill the golden goose to get the eggs and will ruin everything if they do so.
3. Social mobility depends on an ever expanding economy and pot of capital and social mobility is the hall mark of the American system.

What are you going to do confiscate their wealth and have the former middle class gather and throw cash out for them to grab? That's not how it works. The left wants everyone to focus on hatred and resentment of the wealthy because it lets everyone ignore the fact that socialistic policies actually do NOTHING to grow the middle class or help the poor or anything else. Liberal economic policies that favor free enterprise and competition and reward risk taking help them. As well as the wealthy.

This is a complete chicken-or-the-egg scenario. There is no downside for a wealthy person to keep all of their money. None. If the money funnels up and stays there, no I'm-gonna-call-you-all-communists-whenever-I-want diatribes are gonna change that.

That's not true. FIrst of all we are not speaking of wealthy individuals but of companies. Companies from large to medium to small naturally seek to grow and expand. They will always do so unless given disincetives. When they grow they create opportunity for the rest of society.

I realize you worked for the financial industry. The financial industry was totally screwed up through the removal of proper incentive. Risk was eliminated and therefore foolish irrational economic decisions were made. In many ways this led to the crisis. These companies should have been allowed to fail or should not have been allowed to control so much capital that their failure could destroy the whole system. The macro laws hold true however. Entities will do what they percieve to be in their rational self interest if left alone and that will help society as a whole through growth and expanded capital and opportunity.

Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?

Anybody?

Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.

If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth... This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?

I would guess that investments have something to do with it. A one percenter with $15,000,000 in stocks paying an average dividend is looking at about $275,000 a year in dividend income. Just run of the mill bond fund will provide over $300,000 on that principal.

That has been going on all along. How does that account for the redistribution of wealth since 2000?

The very term "re-distribution of wealth" is false. It makes no sense. It has no meaning. It is a socialist/marxist assumption that there is X amount of wealth that needs to be fairly distributed. That's nonsense. As I've pointed out. The American economy has grown exponentially in the past hundred years even taking into account depressions and recessions. It is this growth that has enabled the United States to support an ever growing population that has basically doubled in that time as well as a standard of living that even the poor enjoy that Kings couldn't have imagined.

First of all, if you think the poor in this country are living better than kings you need to get out more. Secondly, when I was a kid there were almost no two income middle class families. Now middle class status is very difficult to achieve without two incomes. If the wealth is infinite and has not been redistributed then there has at least been a change in the distribution of the wealth. Wages have been stagnant for years while worker productivity has increased. The middle class is shrinking, poverty rates are increasing, and the top 1% continues to garner larger portions of the wealth. They are not "holding onto their money", they are acquiring more, while the rest of the population acquires less, and not because of their lack of effort. Zero interest rates have fueled a grand stock market boom, but haven't helped mom and pop much. Unemployment is back around 5%, but we all know that is nowhere near a true reflection of what is going on and certainly does not reflect the great numbers of people who are making much less than they were 10 years ago, before the crash and bailouts. You can use whatever terms you want to describe these things, but they remain true. I'n not saying anyone is evil here, but I'm beginning to wonder if this may be the inevitable outcome of our form of capitalism. I'm beginning to read about rumblings regarding another possible crash coming in the not so distant future, citing the recent bull market as a possible bubble. Time will tell, but centralization of wealth and power at the exclusion of the majority is a recipe for disaster in any society. Having those who prize the generation and accumulation of wealth in charge of everything may not benefit our nation as a whole in the long run. I'm beginning to think we need another component to our system of checks and balances.

Some of what you say is true but what you discount is the degree to which the political class is responsible for it. The distortion of the market continues apace but today's Democrats are downright hostile to business all the while taking money from the financial industry. ANd yes the prizing of exponential growth of the stock market ahead of real growth of the economy is a recipe for another crash. And yes Obama and Congress failed to actually enact any of the reforms in 2009 that might have prevented the same thing from happening again. And yes, the nature of the economy is changing from industrial to information based and there is no opportunity to return to a time when a man could support a household in middle class style as a factory worker. That is gone forever and is not the fault of the "wealthy." There are whole new ways to make money and if the genius of the market is allowed to operate it will happen.

Everything you state is a problem. None of it is the fault of the system of free enterprise and none of it NONE OF IT will be resolved by confiscating and re-distributring wealth.

Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!

Yup.

The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.

Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?

Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?

_______________________________________________________________________

Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.

Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.

For a high information voter, you must not pay much attention during any sort of budget talks, such as these re-occurring debt ceiling debates.

Oh I pay attention. It seems to me that the only time the Republicans care about the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in office. Maybe if revenue was a little higher we wouldn't need debt ceiling talks quit so often. There are two sides to budget talks after all.

The National Debt has almost DOUBLED since the Republicans asked for a debt limit increase. Keeping your head buried in the past does nothing for the future.

There is nothing that gives anyone the slightest inclination that the Democrats care about spending. NOTHING. Some have even been out insisting that we don't have a spending problem. Now, that's flat out scary.

Revenues are already at record highs and we're still running a half a Trillion dollar deficit. You don't see a problem?

Sorry, but revenue is not at a record high.

Tax revenue most certainly is at record highs. FY 2014 marked the first time ever that revenues exceeded $3 Trillion at $3.02 Trillion, and is expected to rise to $3.17 Trillion for FY 2015. You're worried about the wrong side of the equation.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

[Edited on 9/18/2015 by alloak41]

Tax revenues will always rise simply because population increases. Spending rises at a much greater rate than revenues which is what causes deficits.

Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?

Anybody?

Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.

If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth... This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?

I would guess that investments have something to do with it. A one percenter with $15,000,000 in stocks paying an average dividend is looking at about $275,000 a year in dividend income. Just run of the mill bond fund will provide over $300,000 on that principal.

That has been going on all along. How does that account for the redistribution of wealth since 2000?

The very term "re-distribution of wealth" is false. It makes no sense. It has no meaning. It is a socialist/marxist assumption that there is X amount of wealth that needs to be fairly distributed. That's nonsense. As I've pointed out. The American economy has grown exponentially in the past hundred years even taking into account depressions and recessions. It is this growth that has enabled the United States to support an ever growing population that has basically doubled in that time as well as a standard of living that even the poor enjoy that Kings couldn't have imagined.

First of all, if you think the poor in this country are living better than kings you need to get out more. Secondly, when I was a kid there were almost no two income middle class families. Now middle class status is very difficult to achieve without two incomes. If the wealth is infinite and has not been redistributed then there has at least been a change in the distribution of the wealth. Wages have been stagnant for years while worker productivity has increased. The middle class is shrinking, poverty rates are increasing, and the top 1% continues to garner larger portions of the wealth. They are not "holding onto their money", they are acquiring more, while the rest of the population acquires less, and not because of their lack of effort. Zero interest rates have fueled a grand stock market boom, but haven't helped mom and pop much. Unemployment is back around 5%, but we all know that is nowhere near a true reflection of what is going on and certainly does not reflect the great numbers of people who are making much less than they were 10 years ago, before the crash and bailouts. You can use whatever terms you want to describe these things, but they remain true. I'n not saying anyone is evil here, but I'm beginning to wonder if this may be the inevitable outcome of our form of capitalism. I'm beginning to read about rumblings regarding another possible crash coming in the not so distant future, citing the recent bull market as a possible bubble. Time will tell, but centralization of wealth and power at the exclusion of the majority is a recipe for disaster in any society. Having those who prize the generation and accumulation of wealth in charge of everything may not benefit our nation as a whole in the long run. I'm beginning to think we need another component to our system of checks and balances.

Some of what you say is true but what you discount is the degree to which the political class is responsible for it. The distortion of the market continues apace but today's Democrats are downright hostile to business all the while taking money from the financial industry. ANd yes the prizing of exponential growth of the stock market ahead of real growth of the economy is a recipe for another crash. And yes Obama and Congress failed to actually enact any of the reforms in 2009 that might have prevented the same thing from happening again. And yes, the nature of the economy is changing from industrial to information based and there is no opportunity to return to a time when a man could support a household in middle class style as a factory worker. That is gone forever and is not the fault of the "wealthy." There are whole new ways to make money and if the genius of the market is allowed to operate it will happen.

Everything you state is a problem. None of it is the fault of the system of free enterprise and none of it NONE OF IT will be resolved by confiscating and re-distributring wealth.

Let me clarify that I am in no way in favor of taking money from people, whether they earned it or inherited it, and giving it to somebody else. One thing I'm not sure you're looking at is the fact that these trends really accelerated around 2000, with a different party in power. Also, if trickle down economics works thae nature of the source of growth and income should not result in less wealth for any part of the system. I'm not at a point where I feel comfortable accepting the level of purely political responsibility that you are. I believe the system has flaws that need to be identified and tweaked.

Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!

Yup.

The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.

Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?

Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?

_______________________________________________________________________

Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.

Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.

For a high information voter, you must not pay much attention during any sort of budget talks, such as these re-occurring debt ceiling debates.

Oh I pay attention. It seems to me that the only time the Republicans care about the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in office. Maybe if revenue was a little higher we wouldn't need debt ceiling talks quit so often. There are two sides to budget talks after all.

The National Debt has almost DOUBLED since the Republicans asked for a debt limit increase. Keeping your head buried in the past does nothing for the future.

There is nothing that gives anyone the slightest inclination that the Democrats care about spending. NOTHING. Some have even been out insisting that we don't have a spending problem. Now, that's flat out scary.

Revenues are already at record highs and we're still running a half a Trillion dollar deficit. You don't see a problem?

Sorry, but revenue is not at a record high.

Tax revenue most certainly is at record highs. FY 2014 marked the first time ever that revenues exceeded $3 Trillion at $3.02 Trillion, and is expected to rise to $3.17 Trillion for FY 2015. You're worried about the wrong side of the equation.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

[Edited on 9/18/2015 by alloak41]

Tax revenues will always rise simply because population increases. Spending rises at a much greater rate than revenues which is what causes deficits.

The first sentence is correct. The second is not exactly correct. Spending has been going down slightly the last several years and revenue is very slightly up the last few years. But any time you spend more than you take in you have a deficit. The deficit has been actually decreasing for the last several years, but as long as there is any deficit the national debt will increase. Again, look at the chart at the beginning of the thread. The revenue as a percentage of GDP decreased with the Bush tax cuts and the spending went up at the same time. That caused the jump in debt. I don't see the revenue as a percent of GDP ever increasing at the current record low levels. The spending is decreasing, but let's be realistic, it will never make it as low as the revenue line without crashing the economy. So there we go - nobody wants to admit that we have both a revenue problem and a spending problem. The debt will continue to rise until the blue line hits the red line. So, unless you are willing to increase that revenue somehow, you really need to stop acting like you care about the debt (and that is not directed at you Doug). If you want to increase revenue without raising taxes, maybe we should consider selling Alaska back to Russia or something.

FIrst of all we are not speaking of wealthy individuals but of companies. Companies from large to medium to small naturally seek to grow and expand. They will always do so unless given disincetives. When they grow they create opportunity for the rest of society.

Succinct and accurate. They have exported the manufacturing base overseas to cut production cost, and are creating opportunity for society in places like China and Mexico, while leaving workers in the USA with no hope for a middle class. No blame there, if I could make something cheaper in China, I certainly would!

Not that manufacturing overseas is necessarily a bad thing, upside is the US is not the polluted industrial hellhole it once was. Trouble is the "brawn" jobs aren't here anymore, and nobody can afford the education to get the "brain" jobs.

The answer is to educate the population up to where they can become innovators and inventors, scientists, businesspeople and entrepreneurs, for a "brain" based economy, and there will be an enlightened well paid middle class. The USA is no longer a manufacturing economy, so the means to continue to lead the world only leaves the option of the USA being the leading "brains" of the world, and leaving the grunt work to developing nations.

The way to create the "world brain" USA is to invest massively in education, from preschool up to graduate school, guaranteed education for all, sponsored by all. Of course this seems socialist on the surface of it, but it is actually a purely capitalist investment scheme, to profit from American ingenuity and ensure that this country remains a beacon of freedom.

It is either that, or fragment into feudal police state chaos, no middle class at all, with a small fraction of insanely rich people making money off overseas investments, while trying to police a rudderless idle majority braindead and rotting, ripe for a revolution that will have no positive outcome because they are too stupid to know what they are fighting for, other than that they are simply revolting.... (har har pun intended).

If we choose the feudal chaos and control option, the best way to control the hordes is to simply become a mercenary nation, like old Prussia, with our main job opportunity being to fight for hire across the globe, and pile up money by making weapons.

I think the USA world brain leader option is way better.

FIrst of all we are not speaking of wealthy individuals but of companies. Companies from large to medium to small naturally seek to grow and expand. They will always do so unless given disincetives. When they grow they create opportunity for the rest of society.

Succinct and accurate. They have exported the manufacturing base overseas to cut production cost, and are creating opportunity for society in places like China and Mexico, while leaving workers in the USA with no hope for a middle class. No blame there, if I could make something cheaper in China, I certainly would!

Not that manufacturing overseas is necessarily a bad thing, upside is the US is not the polluted industrial hellhole it once was. Trouble is the "brawn" jobs aren't here anymore, and nobody can afford the education to get the "brain" jobs.

The answer is to educate the population up to where they can become innovators and inventors, scientists, businesspeople and entrepreneurs, for a "brain" based economy, and there will be an enlightened well paid middle class. The USA is no longer a manufacturing economy, so the means to continue to lead the world only leaves the option of the USA being the leading "brains" of the world, and leaving the grunt work to developing nations.

The way to create the "world brain" USA is to invest massively in education, from preschool up to graduate school, guaranteed education for all, sponsored by all. Of course this seems socialist on the surface of it, but it is actually a purely capitalist investment scheme, to profit from American ingenuity and ensure that this country remains a beacon of freedom.

It is either that, or fragment into feudal police state chaos, no middle class at all, with a small fraction of insanely rich people making money off overseas investments, while trying to police a rudderless idle majority braindead and rotting, ripe for a revolution that will have no positive outcome because they are too stupid to know what they are fighting for, other than that they are simply revolting.... (har har pun intended).

If we choose the feudal chaos and control option, the best way to control the hordes is to simply become a mercenary nation, like old Prussia, with our main job opportunity being to fight for hire across the globe, and pile up money by making weapons.

I think the USA world brain leader option is way better.

I agree re: expense of higher education. It is a massive social problem that needs to be dealt with. Nobody should be unable to become a doctor or scientist or engineer because they cannot afford the education. At the same time FEW can afford it not just the poor. The government has made the problem worse. How? The student loan system has enabled schools to simply charge more and more and who pays? The young graduates who are left with crippling staggering debt. I'm not sure what the answer is but more loan avalibility is not it.

Meanwhile the market despite being distorted by government intervention in the student loan area, is self-correcting. Private schools that are absurdly overpriced are in trouble. State colleges that are relative bargains are becoming more and more popular and competitive.

What are you going to do confiscate their wealth and have the former middle class gather and throw cash out for them to grab? That's not how it works. The left wants everyone to focus on hatred and resentment of the wealthy because it lets everyone ignore the fact that socialistic policies actually do NOTHING to grow the middle class or help the poor or anything else. Liberal economic policies that favor free enterprise and competition and reward risk taking help them. As well as the wealthy.

This is a complete chicken-or-the-egg scenario. There is no downside for a wealthy person to keep all of their money. None. If the money funnels up and stays there, no I'm-gonna-call-you-all-communists-whenever-I-want diatribes are gonna change that.

What about opportunity costs? They could be launching a new airline or department store chain to make even MORE money. What would stop them?

That, of course, depends on each individual person, and, like just about everything else these days, depends on who gives who the benefit of the doubt.

This topic has a lot of variation within. There's different types of people with money, different types of families with money, there's the new rich and the very old rich. What might matter to a person that built from scratch might be completely different than what matters to someone who is 4th generation inherited wealthy.

[that helps raise the standard of living, increase employment and wages.

The ones at the top have actually recovered everything, and then some. Why should they care about the ones below them?

Let's not carry on like the top 1% are trying to act on some noble cause of improving our society but are being hindered by certain politicians you don't like.

I agree. But by the same token, we shouldn't automatically mark them down as selfish and hording cash just out of greed, and not re-investing at the rate some would prefer. They didn't get rich making stupid moves, and if parking money on the sidelines for a while is the smart play that's probably where it's going to sit. That's not greed, that's just good sense.

Some got rich by making smart moves. Some got rich by making illegal moves. Some got rich by simply being born.

The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.

Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.

These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?

In the larger scheme we are still doing well compared to the rest of the world and the rest of humanity going back to all time. GBy our own moder standards and the standard of our potential we are not. But the reason is not because evil plutocrats are stealing all the wealth.

So, we are doing better than the rest of humanity in the history of humanity, and it's still not enough?

When will it be?

Furthermore, since we are doing better than the rest of humanity in the history of humanity, why are you complaining about anemic economies? All time best ever in the history of ever is pretty impressive.

Because

1. We want our country to be able to support an ever expanding pot of people and cannot without growth.
2. The American people both right and left are not satisfied with the state of things but the left wants to kill the golden goose to get the eggs and will ruin everything if they do so.
3. Social mobility depends on an ever expanding economy and pot of capital and social mobility is the hall mark of the American system.

I respect your opinions when it comes to the high overview points of economic theory. But I will always wonder why people are taken to task for "broad brushing" when statements like this...

but the left wants to kill the golden goose to get the eggs

...keep getting made. Who is the left? For that matter who is the right?

What are you going to do confiscate their wealth and have the former middle class gather and throw cash out for them to grab? That's not how it works. The left wants everyone to focus on hatred and resentment of the wealthy because it lets everyone ignore the fact that socialistic policies actually do NOTHING to grow the middle class or help the poor or anything else. Liberal economic policies that favor free enterprise and competition and reward risk taking help them. As well as the wealthy.

This is a complete chicken-or-the-egg scenario. There is no downside for a wealthy person to keep all of their money. None. If the money funnels up and stays there, no I'm-gonna-call-you-all-communists-whenever-I-want diatribes are gonna change that.

That's not true. FIrst of all we are not speaking of wealthy individuals but of companies. Companies from large to medium to small naturally seek to grow and expand. They will always do so unless given disincetives. When they grow they create opportunity for the rest of society.

I realize you worked for the financial industry. The financial industry was totally screwed up through the removal of proper incentive. Risk was eliminated and therefore foolish irrational economic decisions were made. In many ways this led to the crisis. These companies should have been allowed to fail or should not have been allowed to control so much capital that their failure could destroy the whole system. The macro laws hold true however. Entities will do what they percieve to be in their rational self interest if left alone and that will help society as a whole through growth and expanded capital and opportunity.

Rich raised the question "What has a rich person ever done to you?" I found this question at face value to mean "How dare you question the rich?" I gave a personal example of the actions of one rich person.

The very rich guy that was just sent to prison for shipping knowingly contaminated peanut butter that killed people, what'd he do to anybody?

Yes, the financial industry, as you point out. Where I'm coming from is this...that whole thing was concepted and executed...by a bunch of very rich people. I think it's always a good idea to keep benefits of doubts in check.

[that helps raise the standard of living, increase employment and wages.

The ones at the top have actually recovered everything, and then some. Why should they care about the ones below them?

Let's not carry on like the top 1% are trying to act on some noble cause of improving our society but are being hindered by certain politicians you don't like.

I agree. But by the same token, we shouldn't automatically mark them down as selfish and hording cash just out of greed, and not re-investing at the rate some would prefer. They didn't get rich making stupid moves, and if parking money on the sidelines for a while is the smart play that's probably where it's going to sit. That's not greed, that's just good sense.

Some got rich by making smart moves. Some got rich by making illegal moves. Some got rich by simply being born.

I wouldn't necessarily say that those that don't reinvest money are selfish or greedy either, but all the talk of tax cuts for the wealthy seem to be based on the assumption that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy. Doesn't seem to happen. If they horde their money, it doesn't make them bad people, but it does make these tax breaks a giveaway and a poor move for anybody who cares about deficits or the escalating debt.

that helps raise the standard of living, increase employment and wages.

The ones at the top have actually recovered everything, and then some. Why should they care about the ones below them?

Let's not carry on like the top 1% are trying to act on some noble cause of improving our society but are being hindered by certain politicians you don't like.

I agree. But by the same token, we shouldn't automatically mark them down as selfish and hording cash just out of greed, and not re-investing at the rate some would prefer. They didn't get rich making stupid moves, and if parking money on the sidelines for a while is the smart play that's probably where it's going to sit. That's not greed, that's just good sense.

Some got rich by making smart moves. Some got rich by making illegal moves. Some got rich by simply being born.

I wouldn't necessarily say that those that don't reinvest money are selfish or greedy either, but all the talk of tax cuts for the wealthy seem to be based on the assumption that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy. Doesn't seem to happen. If they horde their money, it doesn't make them bad people, but it does make these tax breaks a giveaway and a poor move for anybody who cares about deficits or the escalating debt.

Allowing a person to keep more of their own income is hardly a "giveaway."

It would seem you, and I, are not with the latest liberal/socialist mind set.

If you study hard and get a good quality education, go to work (how dare you!) and are successful thus being able to sustain yourself, your family and employ people you must be denigrated, chastised and be required to carry all the people who did not.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

_________________________________________________________________

It sure did work well.
When president Bush cut the federal income tax rates the effect was to stop the downhill economic situation leftover from the Clinton administration, brought unemployment to the lowest level in over 70 years (with actual full time jobs) and increased tax revenue in the Treasury to the highest level in American history.

It was not until 2007 when Reid and Pelosi took control of Congress that the economy died.

The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.

Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.

These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?

In the larger scheme we are still doing well compared to the rest of the world and the rest of humanity going back to all time. GBy our own moder standards and the standard of our potential we are not. But the reason is not because evil plutocrats are stealing all the wealth.

So, we are doing better than the rest of humanity in the history of humanity, and it's still not enough?

When will it be?

Furthermore, since we are doing better than the rest of humanity in the history of humanity, why are you complaining about anemic economies? All time best ever in the history of ever is pretty impressive.

Because

1. We want our country to be able to support an ever expanding pot of people and cannot without growth.
2. The American people both right and left are not satisfied with the state of things but the left wants to kill the golden goose to get the eggs and will ruin everything if they do so.
3. Social mobility depends on an ever expanding economy and pot of capital and social mobility is the hall mark of the American system.

I respect your opinions when it comes to the high overview points of economic theory. But I will always wonder why people are taken to task for "broad brushing" when statements like this...

but the left wants to kill the golden goose to get the eggs

...keep getting made. Who is the left? For that matter who is the right?

Here I am referring to the hard left that opposes or is hostile to profit as a matter of principle. Unfortunately to my eyes it is becoming a greater and greater part of the Democratic party.