Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

My statement was in response to you wondering why a "massive deficit" is an earth-shattering problem. It was not in response to you merely stating that we have just any deficit or that a certain party is in power.

Yes, I realize that. But the original context of my statement about the massive deficit, which was a bit longer, still holds.

And I'm glad we can agree on something.

[GRH]

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Tracy, given the data at this link is a little bit dated, but more contemporary studies suggest that in recent decades, wealth has become even more concentrated in the hands of the elite few. The "poor" rich folks in the top ten percent of earners pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Well guess what, that same top ten percent owns over 70% of the income and wealth in America. So from where I stand, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the people who own most of America to in turn pay the bulk of the taxes. To suggest the rich are "overtaxed" is to ignore just how much of America the top few percent of earners actually own.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by GRH

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Tracy, given the data at this link is a little bit dated, but more contemporary studies suggest that in recent decades, wealth has become even more concentrated in the hands of the elite few. The "poor" rich folks in the top ten percent of earners pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Well guess what, that same top ten percent owns over 70% of the income and wealth in America. So from where I stand, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the people who own most of America to in turn pay the bulk of the taxes. To suggest the rich are "overtaxed" is to ignore just how much of America the top few percent of earners actually own.

During the 1950s and 1960s taxes on the wealthy were up around 70%. The economy was thriving and so was the middle class. In the early days, Henry Ford understood economics, he paid his workers well so they could afford to buy his cars. Corporation business men now days don't seem to understand that principle. Turn the workers into slaves and they aren't going to buy anything.

[randolph]

Bush vs Obama on new spending.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Bush vs Obama on new spending.

I think your chart is missing a few items for Obama. Here's a bailout tracker with a total of $11 trillion in bailouts. $700 billion is Bush's. Wouldn't the rest be Obama's?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppl...ailouttracker/

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think your chart is missing a few items for Obama. Here's a bailout tracker with a total of $11 trillion in bailouts. $700 billion is Bush's. Wouldn't the rest be Obama's?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppl...ailouttracker/

Yes that chart does look suspicious. Here is some explanation.

From NY Times

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.
In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.

Gulp!

[franalexes]

There's only one chart that bothers me.
So many admierers, so few T-gurls.