As The Rich Get Poorer

Math is not one of my better subjects, so for those of you that are a little better at this than me, here's my question.... I have seen on T.V. that instead of bailing the banks and companies that have gotten into a jam because of their mismanagement, instead we give everyone (legal residents) over the age of 18 $100,000.00, we might also exclude those that have been convicted of a felony (maybe just elegible boters?). How much would this cost??? Even if we toned that down to $50,000.00? This would help all those facing foreclosure and help the banks as they would be getting the money from the people that owe it. It may even help the car companies, people might buy cars. It would for sure help the whole economy as everyone would have money to spend. Seems to me this would do more good than the current plan to bail the companies out.

Mr. Samuleson: As a observation not all of us are "poor" some of us are well educated individuals that work icareers that are not deemed "valuable" at least not in a monetary sense. I resent your implications of the behaviors of those that are not rich I believe you mentioned the poor. Not all poor are lazy and ahving bad habits or educations. Life has a way of throwing curve balls to MANY, how do I know I have dealt with this all my career in NON-PROFIT counseling to aide people. My husband is also well educated and we are at what would be considered a comfortable income level.

Heres the catch as the wealthier people went up the ladder they forgot about the rest of the people and tooke for themselve in wast quantities of greed. We on the other hand don't have the fancy loop holes to stash our cash. Non profits usually cannot offer a retirement account, therefoe I alone put aside my monies for the future. There were no christmas parties, dinners or bonuses to be had. My husbands company eliminated pension plans and now yearly the yearly bonus for those middle executives.

We still pay rather hefty taxes here in western NY and Im assuming due to the problems downstate we will be blostering downstate once again, while we have been ignored and scrapping by for decades.

If the rich have to take it on the chin like the rest of us, so be it I think after what we have witnessed due to INCOMOPENTENCY and GREED maybe the "rich" will forced to rethink there me first attitudes that have prevailed for too long.

Mr. Samuelson, have you ever played a game of monopoly? What happens when one person owns all the properties, all the houses and hotels. Its game over. The rich cannot continue to make money because everyone else is broke. If the properties are distrubed more evenly, then the game can go on forever. You may own Boardwalk and Park Place, but I own all the railroads. I make money, then you make money.

Just an observation re your column's title "As The Rich Get Poorer -- Making the rich poorer doesn't make everyone else richer" seems incongruous (i.e. being wealthy is not being poor so how can anything make the rich poorer?) -- Definition of poor: of, relating to, or characterized by poverty; lacking a normal or adequate supply of something specified.
"As The Rich Get Less Wealthy -- Making the rich less affluent doesn't make everyone else richer" -- Besides -- why is a column on the perils of the wealthy relevant given the loss of jobs and homes by thousands of Americans?

tired and old, So do you have anything hopeful to comment on???My hope would be that "we, the people" could figure out a way to come together and form a "special interest" that would address many issues that contribute to most of "our" problems. Most problems go hand in hand with each other, if we can solve one we can solve many. One of the biggest problems as I see it is the silent majority, we all need to come together so our voice is as strong as the "special interest" groups that are our downfall.

THOSE WHO HAVE MILLIONS OR BILLIONS CAN AFFORD TO LOSE SOME MONEY.

THOSE ( THE MAJORITY ) WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE MONEY ARE SCREWED.

THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS PUBLIC MONEY RAISED BY TAXES, THREAT OF PRISON TIME IS A GOOD MOTIVATIONAL TOOL FOR TAX COLLECTION.

THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS SET UP TO EVENTUALLY GET EVERYTHING WE HAVE, REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY OUTCOME.

THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOSE IN THE END.

THE PEOPLE WILL LOSE IN THE END.

THE RICH WILL LOSE IN THE END.

GREED WILL DESTROY !

The Rich are not getting Poorer. They have fooled you and the rest of you common folks. They got so rich that there is no money left. Now they have you thinking that they are losing money. They are losing your money not theirs. Remember 80% of the worlds economy is owned by 12-20 families and their associates.

I agree that making the rich poorer doesn't necessarily help the rich. The general goal should be to raise living standards for everyone. But that shouldn't be about "averages" or the GDP. If the GDP goes up by 10% and 90% of the people have the same living standard, I don't think that is progress. The standard should be about how it affects most (if not all) of the people. The measure of whether a country is better off should be how 80, 90, or 95% of the people are affected, NOT how the average has changed.

I don't think that there are many people who wish that the wealthy who made their money legitimately are taken down a peg. However, I think their is little sympathy for hedge fund managers who pulled in billions dollars on their clients' backs when just a short time later, the market collapses and these guys don't share in the suffering. I think there is an increasing awareness (and decreasing sympathy) of those who make money on the backs of others without any actual investment themselves.the country as a whole if 80% of the people don't see an increase in their standards of living.

I don't think that there are many people who wish that the wealthy who made their money legitimately are taken down a peg. However, I think their is little sympathy for hedge fund managers who pulled in billions dollars on their clients' backs when just a short time later, the market collapses and these guys don't share in the suffering (other than suddenly having fewer guys to split the cost of their yacht vacations). It might be appropriate for some of the bankers and mortgage brokers to have to share in the pain.

Robert Samuelson is widely considered a financial god and guru to thousands of financially astute people, both liberals and conservatives. Also, he doesn???t vote in any elections and never states political preferences, to maintain neutrality. He writes a regular column for Newsweek and is highly respected for his advice and insight.
Yet, I could not help but notice that Newsweek waited until AFTER the election to publish this column. Could it be because Samuelson pokes a giant hole in one of the main pillars of Obama???s economic plan? It???s pretty obvious that Newsweek, part of the classic liberal MSM, does not want it???s readers to know the truth: taxing the richer doesn???t help the poorer. It doesn???t work, and Samuelson explains here why this is the case.
If there was ever a classic case of what people are talking about when they refer to the ???liberal media??? this is it. You see, it???s not always what the media says or does that reveals it???s bias. Often, it???s what they DON???T do, or the TIMING of when they do it. Sneaky? Sure. But, it worked, didn't it? Look who is headed for the White House, if you want your proof.

Robert Samuelson is widely considered a financial god and guru to thousands of financially astute people, both liberals and conservatives. Also, he doesn???t vote in any elections and never states political preferences, to maintain neutrality. He writes a regular column for Newsweek and is highly respected for his advice and insight.
Yet, I could not help but notice that Newsweek waited until AFTER the election to publish this column. Could it be because Samuelson pokes a giant hole in one of the main pillars of Obama???s economic plan? It???s pretty obvious that Newsweek, part of the classic liberal MSM, does not want it???s readers to know the truth: taxing the richer doesn???t help the poorer. It doesn???t work, and Samuelson explains here why this is the case.
If there was ever a classic case of what people are talking about when they refer to the ???liberal media??? this is it. You see, it???s not always what the media says or does that reveals it???s bias. Often, it???s what they DON???T do, or the TIMING of when they do it. Sneaky? Sure. But, it worked, didn???t it? Look who is headed for the White House, if you want your proof.