As The Rich Get Poorer

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: BD2000 @ 11/07/2008 11:38:40 AM

    e66984 you can "get out" of the majority of these situations see Oprah she had a family breakdown, low skills initially, and plain bad luck. She has turned into a mega-star, primarily because of an emphasis on hard work. While not everyone will be as successful as her, you can improve your lot in life here in America. I too have come from a broken family, had no skills, and was on my way down. I decided though to jointhe military and was taught a skill. When I took that plus the money for college I now have changed my skillset and I can provide a middleclass lifestyle for my family. Will my kids have it easier? Yes, but that does not change the argument that others could do the same if need be.

  • Posted By: e66984 @ 11/07/2008 10:49:55 AM

    Mr Samuelson think before you speak 'They're usually poor for their own reasons: family breakdown, low skills, destructive personal habits and plain bad luck." These reasons are not people's own issues. These are situations people are born into and can't get out of because they don't have the money, education, or opportunities that other classes of people have. I have the middle class job I have today because my dad took me to HR and got me an entry level posistion. Who's gonna do that for the poor?

  • Posted By: crippled self-identity @ 11/07/2008 5:21:22 AM

    Economic inequality as a concept refers to times of relative normalcy. These ain't normal times. The poor are hurting more, like the rich.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 11/05/2008 10:36:12 PM

    Taxing the rich doesn't make them poorer. It makes them less rich for a common good, like fixing bridges in Minnesota before the traffic falls through the bridges. Taxing the poor less doesn't make them rich. It makes them less poor. Whatever we do, we better not ever let people start starving. That diminishes a whole country. It is not giving them food alone that alleviates this. It is insisting that they be educated adequately, like it or not, and that eventually takes care of the problem. Turn the cartoons off.

    • Posted By: Generic Person @ 11/06/2008 2:12:57 AM

      Well, I would not be doing my job if I did not provide stark opposition to anyone who disagrees with the weekly article, so here goes. Forgive me for picking the easiest target, but it is late, and I have an essay to write, anyway, moving on.

      What you are doing is using emotions, rather than facts to influence opinions. On a personal level I find that relatively disgusting, and it is the reason I called you an easy target. I will now provide an opposing view in the form of numbers, rather than emotions which are easily influenced by heuristics.

      According to this article:

      http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2325

      And I quote ???Americans already transfer more than a trillion dollars a year to low-income households??? Has that money reduced dependency? Has it solved the problems associated with poverty and inequality????

      We do live in a wealthy nation; the standard of living is at historical highs, as it usually is, there is psychological research (that I am to lazy to look up and provide, so you can just ignore this paragraph if you want to), that suggest that people are poor because they live in the moment, and have self destructive behavior.

      Is that the only reason for poverty, no, certainly not, but here is something a politician will never tell you: the world is not perfect. We go to great lengths to try and make it so, and our Government promises that it can do so, but it is not going to happen.

      • Posted By: olderwiser @ 11/06/2008 9:04:55 AM

        It is easy to criticize the poor. What an easy target one presents who is willing to condemn the poor as being self destructive through the process of living only in the moment, especially when the critic is willing to ignore educated studies on the subject. I will submit again the urging that education be vigorously imposed on persons who need it the most. This certainly includes those, both rich and poor, who are inclined to living only in the moment and who indulge in self destructive behavior. It is even possible to include our just deposed president in that class that you so cavalierly limit to the poor. Just look at our just deposed president who had the benefit of riches, ignored his opportunity to learn at Yale and Harvard, indulged in self destructive behavior, and practically ruined our country and a good part of the world in a short eight years. You criticize the poor and I will criticize those of the rich who so richly deserve it. The emotion is all yours.

        • Posted By: Generic Person @ 11/07/2008 1:31:37 AM

          Hmm, it appears I have made a mistake. I did not notice that you were toting education as a cure all for poverty, my apologies. I cannot rationally object to that with my current knowledge and I certainly cannot say I disagree with it.

          Here you say I am 'willing to ignore educated studies on the subject' but I could just as easily accuse you of the same. I did not say research proves, I said research suggest, there is also research that suggest the opposite.

          I then later said 'Is that the only reason for poverty? no, certainly not' I was not condemning the poor (at least not all of them) I was providing evidence to support a point, that the world is not perfect and our exertions will not make it so.

          Oh, and while I am letting my emotions get the better of me (and I am). Using one example (say George Bush) to prove something is a logical fallacy.

      • Posted By: olderwiser @ 11/06/2008 11:33:22 AM

        Well, Generic Person, you promised to provide numbers to edify us and only provided "Half Trillion". I find no other numbers and conclude that you mean that each one of the half trillion is counted by weight. I trump your "half trillion" with "one gadrazillion", which is the largest number in the world and each one is counted individually against your paltry half trillion. Your promise of numbers failed and the emotion of your argument is superfluous. I hope that the essay you wrote is better than this or you will not get a passing grade.

  • Posted By: MegaDeath @ 11/06/2008 4:13:34 PM

    As long as Obama KEEPS his campaign promise to Spread the Wealth, that's all the people need. Obama promised to give free money from the people with millions and the rich politicions and give it to us. Obama promised to buy our homes that were being foreclosed and he promised free medical, prescriptions and dental coverage. There is no need for us to work and pay taxes when Obama will pay for what we need.

    • Posted By: HeresHoping @ 11/06/2008 6:31:33 PM

      I actually believe most Obama supporters, and even rational McCain supporters (never mind the Palin supporters-they're just plain nuts), are prepared to endure the long, slow effort to dig us out, as long as Obama approaches that effort with the integrity, intelligence, and compassion that he has shown during his campaign.

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 11/06/2008 5:00:06 PM

      And if all goes well you'll be able to fill that Rx for Lithium that you so desperately need.

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 11/06/2008 4:56:43 PM

      Your math shows you must have been part of the "No Child Left Behind" program.

  • Posted By: Oaktown Charlie @ 11/05/2008 3:03:16 PM

    The 'rich' however defined are not a static group with a fixed membership. There is great income mobility in the US so today's poor guy can be tomorrows rich guy and vice-versa. The share of taxes paid by the top earners has increased during the last 8 years. So much for the lie that the Bush tax cuts benefited the rich.

    • Posted By: HinderedHindsight @ 11/05/2008 3:48:54 PM

      "So much for the lie that the Bush tax cuts benefited the rich."

      The tax policies disproportionately benefited the ownership class.

      The key element is the fact that a ton of taxes come from large purchases such as vehicles and homes. Income tax is not the only source of revenue for the government- it is just the only source of revenue that is
      dependent on what you earn, rather than what you spend.

      The fact is the average wages earned in the lower and middle income classes have not kept with inflation. The end result is the lower and middle income classes are spending less, especially with the gradual credit lockup that has been happening over the last year. When the middle and lower classes start to get squeezed, they stop buying cars and homes (as we have witnessed)- this is where a bulk of purchases take place.

      However- the ownership class's spending habits are not immediately curbed not only because they have exponentially more disposable income, but they also have access to specialized credit markets that the rest of us do not have.

      As a result, when middle and lower classes stop purchasing a significant portion of the tax pie disappears. When a portion of the pie disappears, what happens to the percentages of of the ownership class whose spending has not been curbed? It ends up occupying a larger piece of the pie.

      If the rich wanted to pay less of a percentage of the pie, the amount of money the middle class makes needs to increase. When wages keep with inflation, and the middle class has money to spend, they will spend more, increasing their contribution to the pie and thereby decreasing the tax liability of the ownership class.

      The tax cuts benefiting the rich is not a lie, their percentage of the tax pie increased because everyone else is spending less.

      • Posted By: HinderedHindsight @ 11/05/2008 3:55:12 PM

        Additionally, consider what the loss of jobs does to revenues generated by income tax. When tens of thousands of jobs are lost, that puts a huge reduction in the overall amount that the middle class ends up paying into the tax system.

        But it has the same exact effect on the percentages paid by the rich compared to the amount paid by the middle or lower classes.

        The moral of the story is that when you have deficits in tax revenue induced by jobs, the percentages change drastically. The rich are paying more not because of tax policy, but because the middle and lower classes are not earning more compared to the increase of wealth among the rich

        • Posted By: Oaktown Charlie @ 11/05/2008 4:07:34 PM

          Your comments are based on a flawed premise that wages have not gone up. Household income has remained flat over the last several years but that is misleading. The number of wage earners per household has decreased. Per capita income has gone up so all Americans on average have more to spend. GNP growth defeats your statement that everyone else is spending less. Look somewhere other than the NYT for your statistics.

          You do make an interesting point - not all taxes are based on income. We really should look at replacing the income tax with a consumption tax - that truly would be fair.

          • Posted By: HinderedHindsight @ 11/05/2008 4:20:31 PM

            "Your comments are based on a flawed premise that wages have not gone up. "

            Actually, my comments are based on the fact that:
            A) Earnings among the MIDDLE class have not kept up with inflation
            B) The overall percentage of wealth owned by the "rich" has increased by greater percentages than the middle class.

            GNP can still be artificially propped up by the rich if their earning and spending increases sufficiently. Most evidence I have seen indicates that it has increased faster than at the middle class, where most of the problems are being felt (job loss, credit freeze, stagnant earnings compared to inflation).

            If the rich keep getting richer at a faster rate than every other class, the GNP can still show overall growth. Further, the rich are not losing their income like the middle class are.

            When the banks failed, executives were still given golden parachutes in a number of cases. How often does this happen with the middle class when their jobs are cut en masse?

            • Posted By: Oaktown Charlie @ 11/05/2008 4:35:28 PM

              Please cite your source that the middle class has not keep up. The NYT has made this claim based on family income (a non-existent category) without saying the the number in the group have decreased. Per capita income has increased.

              • Posted By: Hope Won @ 11/06/2008 6:05:33 PM

                Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

                It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn???t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. ???How can this be fair???? he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. ???How can this be right????

                http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

                Read this article. It is pretty clear who is getting the shaft in this country.

              • Posted By: HinderedHindsight @ 11/05/2008 5:21:43 PM

                Inflation rates since 1999:
                http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

                Census Bureau reports on median household income:
                http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

                " Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007"

                Compared to 3.2 percent inflation in 2006

                http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html
                "Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200" (about a 4% increase from 2005)

                Compared to 3.4% inflation

                http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html
                "Real median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005"

                Compared to 2.7 percent inflation in 2004

                http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html
                "Real median household income remained unchanged between 2003 and 2004 at $44,389"

                Compared to 2.3 percent inflation in 2003


                While it is obvious that the value of goods increased during the period between 2003 and 2007, the value of the American worker has not increased (overall) at the same pace.

                • Posted By: Oaktown Charlie @ 11/05/2008 7:26:17 PM

                  " Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007"

                  Compared to 3.2 percent inflation in 2006

                  You missed or do not understand the word 'real' - that means constant dollar adjusted for inflation. or 'real increase.'

              • Posted By: HinderedHindsight @ 11/05/2008 6:50:06 PM

                Allow me to clarify my comment "the rich are not losing their income like the middle class"

                What I meant was that upper class jobs are not being cut in the same numbers as middle class jobs. Yes, per capita income may have increased (I'd like to see the source on that)- but typically, per capita income is calculated of the total amount projected to be earned within a country, and valued across the entire population. It is not an accurate reflection of wealth within the individual classes or what families typically make. If the rich just keep getting richer- but the middle class makes only mild gains (and as I have shown, it does not keep pace with inflation year over year, nor does it reflect those who are unemployed), then of course the per capita income will increase.

                In other words, a per capita income increase does not mean the middle class is doing better than inflation. A per capita income increase can follow the expansion of the wealthy class, which has been shown to happen year over year.

                This is why the Census Bureau tracks the median household income. It is a more accurate reflection of how the lower class is doing.

          • Posted By: YashBudini @ 11/05/2008 10:28:14 PM

            "Your comments are based on a flawed premise that wages have not gone up. "

            Even now CEO bonuses show no sign of letting up. So don't complain, just eat the cake already.

          • Posted By: HinderedHindsight @ 11/05/2008 4:30:43 PM

            Also, keep in mind that GNP includes products and services that are produced outside the U.S. as well as inside. With the increased use of outsourcing and the increase of Global markets, it is entirely possible for the GNP to increase while earnings of actual citizens remains stagnant.

  • Posted By: HeresHoping @ 11/06/2008 12:41:27 PM

    I take issue with two of the assumptions presented here:

    1.) Only the rich can generate income. Excuse me? I fail to see how redistributing less than 4% of the income of the wealthy primarily to the middle class is going to result in our economy going down the crapper. So now middle class Americans no longer possess the intelligence, ingenuity and drive of the wealthy? Sigh. I don't think the Republican party needs to look much further to see where it went wrong.

    2.) Poor people are lazier and don't work as hard as middle class and wealthy people. I'm sorry, but I was raised in a middle class family and work with a lot of poor families. I'd put money on the fact that there is a higher percentage of lazy the higher up you go, econcomically speaking. We all know those people who phone it in at work, and whose spouse keeps thing upright at home. And the vast majority of the poor? are WORKING poor. Really, it has been my experience that economic class is far more impacted by intelligence and mental health issues (which we can do little about, so I would advise "There, but for the grace of God...), and drug addition and lifeskills obtained (Oh dear, those evil SOCIAL PROGRAMS). And oh, by the way, there are no vacations from poverty.

    • Posted By: sobbingcubbie1908 @ 11/06/2008 1:03:19 PM

      Who said social programs are evil? My point is that individuals can only truly help themselves, and many able-bodied Americans choose to take the easy way and then look to others to "fix it"---usually others who have already fixed it for themselves. And I will tell you that your comment about the higher that you go up the economic ladder, the lazier people are is rediculous. Many CEO's and middle executioves do not punch a clock, so getting to work at 6a is very common, leving well after 7p is common too, and working weekends is not optional, if one expects to get things done. The more success that I EARN seems to require a bigger apology. If an individual chooses to do drugs (I know that the idea of becoming addicted is farfetched and not well-known?), then we, as a society will have to step in and help them--I guess? I just get tired of working my way up the ladder, only to have those who never grabbed the first rung complain about how unfair things are. Unfairness is taking from those who actually work for it to help those who WON'T.

      • Posted By: HeresHoping @ 11/06/2008 6:01:04 PM

        So I'm just curious. You didn't work as hard before you were promoted? And while I agree there are many able-bodied poor Americans who aren't working hard for something better, there are just as many poor Americans getting up earlier than you do to work two jobs.

  • Posted By: GeoArk @ 11/06/2008 4:42:34 PM

    It???s too bad that some economists just don???t get it. It???s not WHO you tax but WHAT you tax that counts. Let???s stop taxing things that we want and start taxing things we don???t want. Another way to say this: Tax Waste, Not Work or Tax Bads, Not Goods. We need to remove all taxes on work and enterprise as we charge for the use of OUR natural environment: Land, Air, and Water. This will not only create more jobs and business but will provide the incentives to reduce the use of natural resources and, thus, launch a new industrial revolution of resource conserving technology.

    If you don???t understand this concept you might do well to pick up the latest copy of Harpers and read Michael Hudson???s article on taxing Land. Most people will understand his analysis. Unfortunately if you have been raised on neo-classical economics you may have to read Hudson???s article three or four times before you get it. But it will be well worth it.

  • Posted By: tjohn017 @ 11/06/2008 4:39:33 PM

    I pay in several thousand a year, and under Obamas plan I will get more back than under Bushes plan. How exactly am I getting rich? And how is that redistributing the wealth of the the rich to me? I don't know how much money you consider getting rich but a refund of 1,500 to 2,500 does not make me rich. By the way I earned that money in the first place. Why shouldn't I get some of it back? The rich pay a smaller percentage on a greater amount and can hire accountants to make sure they pay even less. Suddenly they are poor for having to pay their fair share? Having to pay their fair share for roads, schools, ect does not mean they are going to be poor anymore than it means I will get rich.

  • Posted By: mccuerc @ 11/05/2008 4:35:55 PM

    Mr. Samuelson you have been deceived by the roar of the poolitical crowd. We really do not care about the poor. At all. The poor know that and live in that grim reality. What we care about is our own security and our own slow almost imperceptible slid down the economic scale. "Redistribution" has become a hot button issue precisely because of the emotional and moral issue that Sen. McCain pointed to. The game was rigged. We were cheated. Everyone was told that we were all getting richer, and i aggregate that was true, but on average we, the mid upper classes, knew that we were, relatively speaking, losing ground. And it is that relative motion that is critical. The working poor today live in splendor compared to the squalor of a medeival baron, but that does nto make the poor "not poor". Poverty is a strictly relative concept. CEOs are poor when they "only" pull down $100,000- or so. Yet $100,000 is still a fair amount of money. When the aspiring classes, the upper middles, realize that they are never going to close the gap because at best they increase at 1% while those in the fixed game increase at 5% that is trouble. Not that we are unhappy with the 1% increase, that's quite nice thank you, but as the measuring stick gets longer we are POORER. But then you are in the same condition as the Chancellor of France in 1788. You can not understand whay with an economy in trouble, but fundamentally ok, why the country is so close to revolt. A revolt started by, lead by, and almost exclusively benefitting, the upeer middle classes.

    What we all want is not redistribution

    What we all want is a what we perceive as a fair shot at the prize. That is what has been stolen from us over the last decade. It was hidden by bubbles as people who were not stupid did things that were stupid convinced that they could improve their lot before it all fell in.

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 11/06/2008 1:58:13 PM

      mccuerc hits the nail on the head.

  • Posted By: HeresHoping @ 11/06/2008 12:45:54 PM

    I take issue with two of the assumptions presented here:

    1.) Only the rich can generate income. Excuse me? I fail to see how redistributing less than 4% of the income of the wealthy primarily to the middle class is going to result in our economy going down the crapper. So now middle class Americans no longer possess the intelligence, ingenuity and drive of the wealthy? Sigh. I don't think the Republican party needs to look much further to see where it went wrong.

    2.) Poor people are lazier and don't work as hard as middle class and wealthy people. I'm sorry, but I was raised in a middle class family and work with a lot of poor families. I'd put money on the fact that there is a higher percentage of lazy the higher up you go, economically speaking. We all know those people who phone it in at work, and whose spouse keeps thing upright at home. And the vast majority of the poor? are WORKING poor. Really, it has been my experience that economic class is far more impacted by intelligence and mental health issues (which we can do little about, so I would advise "There, but for the grace of God...), and drug addition and life skills obtained (Oh dear, those evil SOCIAL PROGRAMS). And oh, by the way, there are no vacations from poverty.


    • Posted By: sobbingcubbie1908 @ 11/06/2008 1:22:24 PM

      Who said social programs are evil? My point is that individuals can only truly help themselves, and many able-bodied Americans choose to take the easy way and then look to others to "fix it"---usually others who have already fixed it for themselves. And I will tell you that your comment about the higher that you go up the economic ladder, the lazier people are is rediculous. Many CEO's and middle executioves do not punch a clock, so getting to work at 6a is very common, leving well after 7p is common too, and working weekends is not optional, if one expects to get things done. The more success that I EARN seems to require a bigger apology. If an individual chooses to do drugs (I know that the idea of becoming addicted is farfetched and not well-known?), then we, as a society will have to step in and help them--I guess? I just get tired of working my way up the ladder, only to have those who never grabbed the first rung complain about how unfair things are. Unfairness is taking from those who actually work for it to help those who WON'T.

  • Posted By: Concerned Canadian @ 11/06/2008 9:11:04 AM

    If Obama promised a "new kind of politics will be in Washington " and also he promised to clean Washington up and get rid of these "double talking" politicians why are we seeing all the people
    being appointed to Obama's administration are the very people he said he would get rid of in Washington ?

    Fair question ...anyone have an answer ?

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 11/06/2008 1:16:12 PM

      And did it bother you when W did the same thing? You ask one side that question when you should be asking both sides. Or are you playing favorites?

    • Posted By: Solange82200 @ 11/06/2008 12:37:06 PM

      Ok, so what do you want, for him to pick people who have no experience and have no idea what they're doing? Would you then complain that he is picking people with no credentials? I bet you would. He is picking the people he feels can best advise him and work under his leadership. In the end, he has the final say and can very well make decisions that aren't "politics as usual". But he can't pick Joe Shmoe or Joe the freaking plumber to be the White House Chief of Staff. Get real

  • Posted By: HeresHoping @ 11/06/2008 12:47:54 PM

    I take issue with two of the assumptions presented here:

    1.) Only the rich can generate income. Excuse me? I fail to see how redistributing less than 4% of the income of the wealthy primarily to the middle class is going to result in our economy going down the crapper. So now middle class Americans no longer possess the intelligence, ingenuity and drive of the wealthy? Sigh. I don't think the Republican party needs to look much further to see where it went wrong.

    2.) Poor people are lazier and don't work as hard as middle class and wealthy people. I'm sorry, but I was raised in a middle class family and work with a lot of poor families. I'd put money on the fact that there is a higher percentage of lazy the higher up you go, economically speaking. We all know those people who phone it in at work, and whose spouse keeps thing upright at home. And the vast majority of the poor? are WORKING poor. Really, it has been my experience that economic class is far more impacted by intelligence and mental health issues (which we can do little about, so I would advise "There, but for the grace of God...), and drug addition and life skills obtained (Oh dear, those evil SOCIAL PROGRAMS). And oh, by the way, there are no vacations from poverty.


  • Posted By: floridacadman @ 11/06/2008 12:12:32 PM

    Ref; sobbingcubbie1908, No one minds working for a living and Im not sure where the magic wand comes in, but whatever. Its going to take years to even begin to undo the madness Bush got us into.
    Lastly, Im not sure how republicans can be so adverse to public programs. If you guys had your way, youd have 40 million more children from unwanted pregnancies in America. If you hate the welfare system now...imagine making 1000 a week and taking home 150. Thatd be about the cost to feed and house all those souls your so passionate about. And dont come back stating its up to the parents, Im in social services and you cant make these people do anything...nope, yours and my problem.

  • Posted By: sobbingcubbie1908 @ 11/06/2008 11:59:38 AM

    Comment: I suspect that a majority of Obama-Biden voters are waiting for the "magic wand" to be waived and for all of the problems created by the "rich" to go away. I ask you to please take a minute to think about the LEGAL IMMIGRANTS that come to our country and prosper in less than a generation. They start businesses and create true wealth just by simply using the system that is currently in place to their advantage, and yet we have AMERICAN families who have been on welfare & gov't assistance for 3 and 4 generations. Whose fault is that??? The people who choose to grub and dig to make it should be rewarded, not those who do nothing to advance themselves. about a decade ago, I worked in a grocery store in my neighborhood in NW Indiana (to pay for my college education) and watched the same families come in week after week and pay for their groceries with Gov't assistance coupons. Many of these people were OBESE--I am not kidding. The reality is if your life is not going the way you want it to, first look in the mirror, that is where it needs to start. The opportunities are there, it is just that most would rather sit back and complain rather than setting then working towards a goal--this is America, the land of opportunity??? I hope that people will truly take the positive wave of hope and optimism and lift themselves up. It is very easy to blame others for your situation. Be an American and do somthing about it, rather than waiting for someone else to. Why apologize for actually working hard and reaping the rewards?

  • Posted By: rmcjls @ 11/05/2008 8:34:24 PM

    "By and large, the poor aren't poor because the rich are rich. They're usually poor for their own reasons: family breakdown, low skills, destructive personal habits and plain bad luck." Quite a claim to make without a shred of evidence or either discussion.

    Also, the wealth may stop getting created if the rich stop what they're doing, but who's to say they'll do that if you tax them a bit more? As long as they turn a profit, they'll keep on keeping on. Somebody's got to pay for government (unless you want to continue transferring wealth in from our children). Let's let the rich pay a little bit more and get every barrier out of the way for the working class to do what they do best. After all, nobody gets rich when the work isn't getting done.

    • Posted By: sobbingcubbie1908 @ 11/06/2008 11:40:09 AM

      I agree, to an extent. Great in theory, but I suspect that a majority of Obama-Biden voters are waiting for the "magic wand" to be waived and for all of the problems created by the "rich" to go away. I would like to present some evidence to support the above quote. I ask you to think about the LEGAL IMMIGRANTS that come to our country and prosper in less than a generation by starting businesses and yet we have AMERICAN families who have been on welfare & gov't assistance for 3 and 4 generations. Whose fault is that??? The people who choose to grub and dig to make it? The opportunities are there, it is just that most would rather sit back and complain rather than setting then working towards a goal--this is America, the land of opportunity??? I did it, I lived it, and now I'm gonna pay for the "under achievers".

  • Posted By: floridacadman @ 11/06/2008 11:29:55 AM

    To read a post stating Obama is unqualified by someone who thinks Palin was, is disturbing to say the least. Obama is a brilliant guy no matter what you think of his politics, Palin thinks Africa is a country and the VP's job is to take over the senate. A bag of hammers rivaled Bush's intellegence level, not to mention, the man was just plain evil.
    Give it a rest guys you lost, and for good reason.

  • Posted By: richleg @ 11/06/2008 11:03:34 AM

    You don't think there is a connection between Wal-mart's profits and the poverty of their employees? I see a lack of imagination on your part. I also see a familiar philosophy at the basis of your argument-- it's neither interesting nor newsworthy.

  • Posted By: Psimondo @ 11/06/2008 11:03:25 AM

    This conflates a lot of arguments into one! Of course its true that to produce money you need to produce goods and services, but companies have been shifting real production offshore, so their are fewer new jobs and as for service: it was largely financial services that boomed- and now its obvious these were poorly understood by the so called experts that created them! The first case requires regulation to make it attractive to hire people at home and jump start entirely new home grown industries - and the second is a case of ill-gotten gains. Claw it all back.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse