Carville: What if the rich lost 40% of their wealth?
Not his best argument, but the over all point is is one worth discussing.
Quote:
The story said that the recent economic crisis left the average American family in 2010 with no more wealth than in the early 1990s, erasing almost two decades of accumulated prosperity, reducing their net worth by almost 40%.
The Republicans say that if we just give the rich more tax cuts, it will make everyone's life better -- seems as though we've tried this before, doesn't it?
The Democrats have done some things that have been helpful, such as payroll tax cuts and the Affordable Care Act, but there is much more work to be done. As far as other institutions around the country, the response has been pathetic.
There is an entire industry devoted to denying that this is even a problem.
Not his best argument, but the over all point is is one worth discussing.
When the hard working middle class who pay the national bills lose 40% of their accumulated wealth, it means they can no longer spend as they normally do. They will tend to spend more on necessities and less on luxuries and big ticket items until they can restore their losses. This will prevent the economy from recovering quickly, though I don't think as long as they're saying.
To say the Republicans believe tax cuts will make everyone's life better is disingenous, to put it kindly. There's a whole laundry list of things that got us into this horrible situation, and over taxing job creators is just one of them.
I never understood people who would deny 20 million people jobs just to punish 1 million businessmen they believe are too wealthy. It just doesn't make sense.
How do you reason the middle class pay the national bills when the upper income classes pay 80% of all cash inflows to the federal treasury?
Most of the "wealth" referred too here was not income nor cash assets, but speculative real estate values that were over inflated and leveraged against for credit.
IMO, thats not real wealth. Sure some will disagree, and i understand why, but I would not rely on non liquid assets to assure my net worth. Cash in king.
I never understood people who would deny 20 million people jobs just to punish 1 million businessmen they believe are too wealthy. It just doesn't make sense.
Kind of like how the republicans in congress would deny a decent jobs bill (or anything to stimulate the economy) that would benefit 20 million people just to make sure 1 president doesn't get reelected.
How do you reason the middle class pay the national bills when the upper income classes pay 80% of all cash inflows to the federal treasury?
Most of the "wealth" referred too here was not income nor cash assets, but speculative real estate values that were over inflated and leveraged against for credit.
IMO, thats not real wealth. Sure some will disagree, and i understand why, but I would not rely on non liquid assets to assure my net worth. Cash in king.
Depends on what you call middle class. I would put that at 75K to around 1 mil.
It doesn't matter whether it's cash or non-cash assets. People have a comfort zone, and will hunker down and replace their losses.
Kind of like how the republicans in congress would deny a decent jobs bill (or anything to stimulate the economy) that would benefit 20 million people just to make sure 1 president doesn't get reelected.
I hope you're not buying that horse pucky. That's straight out of the Dem talking points.
There are many reasons the Republicans are not passing "jobs bills". The main reason being that spending bills can not generally create jobs. Obama tried that, and it came out to over a million dollars per job. It would have been cheaper just to write everyone a check for $100K.
The sticking point is spending, which is soon going to crash the system. The Dems are stonewalling spending reductions. The Republicans are stonewalling taxing the job creators.
Most of the "wealth" referred too here was not income nor cash assets, but speculative real estate values that were over inflated and leveraged against for credit.
IMO, thats not real wealth. Sure some will disagree, and i understand why, but I would not rely on non liquid assets to assure my net worth. Cash in king.
Except that nearly everyone was cashing out that new found wealth through their home equity loans and that stimulated much of the false bubble in spending.
Cash, by way of equity in their overvalued homes, was king, for rich and middle class alike.
I hope you're not buying that horse pucky. That's straight out of the Dem talking points.
There are many reasons the Republicans are not passing "jobs bills". The main reason being that spending bills can not generally create jobs. Obama tried that, and it came out to over a million dollars per job. It would have been cheaper just to write everyone a check for $100K.
The sticking point is spending, which is soon going to crash the system. The Dems are stonewalling spending reductions. The Republicans are stonewalling taxing the job creators.
So I guess it is just a coincidence that after the democratic led congress was able to pass a few bills to stimulate the economy, the numbers started to steadily improve.
Meanwhile, since the republicans have blocked the ability to get anything through congress, the economy is beginning to stagnate again.
It really isn't that complicated.
Let's not play games, please. The number one goal of the republicans in congress is to get a republican back in the white house in November. They do not want to do anything in the meantime that might stimulate the economy, which would obviously improve Obama's chance at reelection.
The party you support put their own disgusting beliefs over the benefit of the entire country. And I personally find that completely despicable.
In November, Americans will have a chance to speak their minds.
And there's one thing everyone should agree on:
America just isn't working right now.
It's not just Americans who aren't working. It's America itself, a country whose economy once worked for almost everyone, not just the rich.
In the old America, if you worked hard, you had a good chance of moving up.
In the old America, the fruits of people's labors accrued to the whole country, not just the top.
In the old America, there was a strong middle class, and their immense collective purchasing power drove the economy for decades.
No longer.
Over the past couple of decades, the disparity between "the 1%" and everyone else has hit a level not seen since the 1920s. And there is a widespread and growing sense that life here is not fair or right.
If America cannot figure out a way to fix these problems, the country will likely become increasingly polarized and de-stabilized. And if that happens, the recent "Occupy" protests will likely be only the beginning.
The problem in a nutshell is this:
In the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.
__________________
"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas."
Kind of like how the republicans in congress would deny a decent jobs bill (or anything to stimulate the economy) that would benefit 20 million people just to make sure 1 president doesn't get reelected.
Like the Keystone pipeline?
__________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin
So I guess it is just a coincidence that after the democratic led congress was able to pass a few bills to stimulate the economy, the numbers started to steadily improve.
Meanwhile, since the republicans have blocked the ability to get anything through congress, the economy is beginning to stagnate again.
It really isn't that complicated.
Let's not play games, please. The number one goal of the republicans in congress is to get a republican back in the white house in November. They do not want to do anything in the meantime that might stimulate the economy, which would obviously improve Obama's chance at reelection.
The party you support put their own disgusting beliefs over the benefit of the entire country. And I personally find that completely despicable.
They just aren't interested in doubling down on failed policies. And if you look closer, it's the senate democrats that are causing the real logjam, terrified to send any type of bill to the floor that they may have to cast a recorded vote on. O had two years of complete control and all he managed to do was spend almost 1T on a couple of stimulus bills and pass a soon to be unconstitutional healthcare act. And now he is interested in jobs?
__________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin
Yes, and fighting Obamacare, which is a large factor in the slow recovery. Small businesses are holding back on hiring because it's so costly with many unknowns.
Quote:
In the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.
Winning? That word implies that if business is "winning", that the middle class is "losing". That's simply not true, even backwards.
Has the thought occurred to you that if the company where you work is successful, that their employees will be more successful? Where I work, hiring, raises, and promotions come during good times. Layoffs and demotions come when business is slow.
It's nutty to hate business so much that in order to punish them, you are willing to punish 20 million laid off workers.
Even very Liberal people do well when the country is prosperous. Without tax money from business and the middle class, your programs have no funding.
Take a dollar and give it to government which doesn't stimulate crap is beyond stupid. Government is too big and can't afford the bills and then we have to hear about teachers. Fireman and police being laid off. That's because they are public sector.
__________________
Quote:
One of these Mornings.... God is gonna' call me home...I won't need no breakfast....I'll be gone, gone. - Breakfast song
Take a dollar and give it to government which doesn't stimulate crap is beyond stupid. Government is too big and can't afford the bills and then we have to hear about teachers. Fireman and police being laid off. That's because they are public sector.
I'm not sure I get what your point is outside of making a vastly vague generalization.. Federal, state and local taxes make much of what you see around you available..
When a disaster strikes, do you not want help from FEMA? When a road gets a pothole (hello New Orleans), do you not want it fixed? When the marshes begin disappearing, do you not want to see them repaired?
You do realize that a vast majority of the public education, public protection and services money comes directly from state and local taxes, not federal, right? Though federal funding through different programs does provide up to and over 10% of national public education funds..
Are you suggesting that when a state's funding fails its school system that we should just replace those schools with privately funded schools? So then something that was previously provided via taxpayer funding is now provided by a company.. Are we to expect the company to offer the school for free as was previously available? Will the city or state reduce our tax burden if not? Not likely.. And where exactly does the private funding come from?
Or when a municipality's funding fails its fire and police services that we should replace those public sector services with private sector services? Will those services be free? Will the city or state reduce our tax burden if not? Not likely.. And again, where does the private funding come from?
Corporate profits are skyhigh, but so is unemployment.. So where are all the jobs the private sector is supposed to provide if it's not the public sector's duty?
Linear Mode
