Lucky...

Here are a few of those very successful people of whom you write. www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/business/17insider.html Brings a tear to my eye thinking of such great american entuprenuers. Then you have Obama who wants to ruin it by providing a way for all Americans to get HC......shameful. Next thing you know Obama will want everyone to have a job.

Maybe they can burn Bible too, it advocates antimiscegenation.....oh wait, the religious right does too, obviously by recent events. Nevermind

Maybe they could roast a few witches over the flames. And they ignite, they weren't really witches, if they don't, they truely are witches.

The only side that has the burden of proof are the conspiracy theorists, just like ANY conspiracy. I wonder if we landed on the moon, but I go with what is 'known' vesus getting stupid with some conspiracy.

They told me I won the UK lottery and I never bought a ticket. I'm confiding in you guys so keep my secret till I get the cash, then I'll hook ya up.

Oh well, ur right, Biden is the pres and Hillary VP; happy now?

Is so out of control. It's simply shocking... It's all Bush and his R Congress. Everything spent so far is purely for Bush's Great Recession. After whatever HC is passed and its related costs, you can draw whatever you want from that, but all spending so far is due to the Great Recession.

It's amazing the pile of crap Bush hands Obama and all Americans, and then some Americans want to blame Obama for it. An economy in its 4th of the last 5 quarters neg GDP with the banking and morgage world in a mess as Obama inherts it and some think he's at fault? Brilliance. Should Obama do what Hoover did and cut taxes, my friends? How did it work out for Hoover and the 12 million dead Americans?

Not a partisan argument at all. Since it is partisan, good thing the R's don't grow the gov - oh wait, they've grown it more than the Dems could ever dream to. As for the necessity of gov, could you imagine the Libertarian dream; Mad Maxville? And when gov does its job, they keep corporatiosn from getting too big, so they really have fallen down - corps are the evil, not gov.

Yea, middle Eastern Struggles for centuries, fires, floods and other natural disasters = same thing. Hey, go to the Great Depression thread and answer that long post I made a couple days ago.

If you botherd to read, you would see I stated that other factors are relevant, but one thing that is sure, when we hit the 30's we're in danger, the 20's we're dead. Show otherwise. I'm talking fed tax State taxes are diff than fed and some states do not have those. You're desperate to pad the number. Whne has it failed? It will be supplemented with some system. Saving 12% in your account cannot be considered a tax in any intelligent arguemnt. Don't forget to add that vacation ot Europe, have to expand your global awareness and that should be considered part of it. And that Italian sportscar, hey, just trying to love our neighbor and help their economy, we'll tack that on too. YOU'RE DESPERATE. I'm not trying to encourage work with this issue, that's a different issue. So I guess with your logic Americans in 1929 were lazy.

I find it hilarious that you bitch about my sources, and then you break out a geocities hosted source. Didn't find anything on the local community college website to backup your claims. Is that author liberal? I dunno, I look at the page to see if it is obviously liberal or conservative and then go fwd if not. Strike it if it's too far either way. The point I was making with that article, THE ONLY POINT was that as taxes were cut to 25% in the late 1920's, the top .1% held what was = to the entire lower 40%. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st289?pg=3 Here they reference the gross disparity with the top .1%, but don't say what they owned. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-118956255/top-wealth-shares-united.html Here again they talk about the top 0.1% This dramatic decline took place at a very specific time period, from the onset of Great Depression to the end of World War II, and was concentrated in the very top groups within the top percentile, namely groups within the top 0.1 percent. Changes in the top percentile below the top 0.1 percent have been much more modest. It is fairly easy to understand why the shocks of the Great Depression, the New Deal policies which increased dramatically the burden of estate and income taxation for the wealthy, and World War II, could have had such a dramatic impact on wealth concentration. Here's another site that depicts the great disparity at the .01% level. http://www.nber.org/papers/w10399 So that was the purpose of that cite, which, if a lib agenda site, I don't think it is, but these clarify and support that piece of data.

Then why ask me to do your research? Ridiculous. I didn't make a claim of 96%, I made a claim of 93%. Furthermore, I claimed the top 20% held 93% of the cash, not of the wealth. I asserted in this thread or another, very recently that the top 20% holds 85% of all wealth; do you know the difference? Is this hard for you to keep up with? 10% of that wealth is equity in their principle residence. Property taxes are one of the key areas that wealth is taxed, not income, arguably some of that wealth is likely sheltered by "working farmsteads" etc. But this is wealth that is hit with taxes to some extent every year. I would argue that only the government can distribute wealth, so that 34% was earned. Some portion of it was taxed since this is an accumulation of earnings. It really appears to me, that the wealth of even the top 1% is active in the economy, and creating value and economic growth. Your problem seems to hinge on the fact that they still hold possesion to a good deal of the wealth that they earned.*** I don't give a shit if it was earned, borrowed, stolen or conveyed, when we lower tehtables to teh 30's we're asking for it, 20's we're dead. Can you argue that?????? Or just ignore it?

This will explain how when we let the rich get uber-wealthy things go to shit: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6854/greatdep.html Main Causes of the Great Depression The "roaring twenties" was an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nation's total realized income rose from $74.3 billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929. However, the rewards of the "Coolidge Prosperity" of the 1920's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Brookings Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all. Automotive industry mogul Henry Ford provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. So let's see, taxes hit a top bracket of 25%, wealth disparity hit record levels, and the GD ensued. Of course Hoover cut taxes, his friends and wanted to let the market fix it, which made it worse and 12 million died. Then he realized he fucked up and cranked taxes to a top bracket of 63% his last year and things immediately turned around. Fast FWD to Reagan's dream, another depression. He cut taxes over 3 increments from 70% to 28% which led to a long recession for GHWB to contend with. Of course the answer was to increase taxes which he and Clinton did and things finally became under control again. Enter G Dumbya. He cut taxes as well, only to 35% but that and with his massive spending things went to hell again. How many times do we have to pander ot the rich and cut the top brackets below 50% before we get it?

If you don't like my sources please feel free to provide refuting data from the sites that you feel are independent. I provided a secondary source that was based on US census data on property ownership and living conditions for the relative poor that I thought was interesting and relevant. Can you please tell me what your definition of poor is? You posted a RW Nazi site that is constantly perpetuated by Limbaugh, Hannity and other compassionate individuals. Yes, I'm not like conservatives, I actually listen to opposing sources. Not only that but it was a fragment of a point. If you have something to claim, pls do and I would be glad to entertain it.

Look, I don't care, but you made some personal implication.... move along, post data and other reference and quit the personalization; my feelings aren't hurt, I just hate to see people wiggle out of a debate over BS. Welcome to the world of objecctive data, I won't post some agendda site, hope that's ok. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm Here's a video tutorial of the L-curve. I like the last statement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU Here's a good graphic: http://markpalermo.tripod.com/id39.html Here's a cool 3D bar chart that depicts 5% from 95% taxes, population and wealth.

Source: Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 27, 2003 What is it with you guys and Heritage? Do you think it's not an agenda site. I realize you walk around with your Walkman on, at work with your radio, with your car radio on the Limbaugh/Hanity network, but do yourself a favor and try to expand your horizons. If I posted a Moveon.org you would be all over me. I don't look at agenda sites so I won't bother looking it up, but that article, if even partially true, doesn't explain why some poor people are underemployed. Get real and do research from indep sites.

So 93% of those funds are in 100% reserved bank accounts, and under extra plush California king mattresses. Totally out of circulation. The more I hear your arguments the more I think you are bitter and jealous toward others, especial others with more than you, because you fell on hard times Thanks for once again bringing in another ad hominem and adding nothing.

Yea, let's talk Asia, Africa and other lovely places to make the US look good. Not me, I want each country to be as self-sustaing as possible. It's not on someone else's dime; you have never drawn a correlation of taxation and any kind of spending.

It's a good job you attorneys have Al Gore to do arithmetic for you. LOL http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/06/opinion/l-bush-vs-gore-debate-aftermath-fuzzy-math-520543.html Looking back, funny how the purveyor of the term had the fuzziest ever at 5+ trillion dollars down the crapper. Anyone who bought into that term by Bush in mid-late 2000 should seriously introspect.

What you probably aren't aware of is that the top 20% holds 93% of the cash, so fiscal repsonsibility isn't somthing we have control of, as we are not really part of the fiscal game.

Nor is it Virginia...I get your reference. Od course "necks" are timeless and geographically diverse.

I'm just saying that the PROCESS of taxing and the PROCESS of collecting are different animals in that they don't consider one when they do the other in virtually all taxing and spending operations. Other than bond measures they really don't. And with HC, let's say, HC policies that are valued at over 15k/yr might be taxed, the purpose of that is that's it's substantial compensation and employers could offload normal compensation by way of tax-free HC ins policies. So there are anomalies, but in general, TAXING AND SPENDING ARE DIFFERENT ANIMALS. It's not directly pointed from one to the other, it is possible to increase taxes without increasing social spending or not proportionately spending as you tax. In fact, that is generally the case where taxing and any kind of spending are inversely proportionate rather than directly proportionate. But how does it work? Well, when we raise taxes regardless of social or military spending the entire economy does much better. Look at the graph at the lower left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States Look what preceded the Great Depression, the 1990 Recession and the now Great Recession. The commonalities were the max tax bracket hitting the 20's%age or now the mid 30's. I think 94% is a but harsh, but 50-60% is reasonable along with responsible spending. Clinton had it at 40% with responsible spending; I think 50% is a good place to be. Of course Reagan initially took it from 70% tp 50%, but it was the spending that was the devil, this is referred to as spending based upon GDP and I guess we have to factor in taxation too. SO it's a dynamic process, but when taxation gets in the 30's we're asking for it, in the 20's it's imminent, my friends. That's because of the human factor. If this were a machine, we could apply a strict system of X in, XX out and turn a profit. We are humans, we need svs, we are sometimes unpredictable and to apply some demand that humans always turn a profit is why the Repubs are sitting and watching; people are sick of pandering to the rich. Socialism is an economic system true, but it has social implications and attributes. You and yours define efficiency by way of Darwin, I define it as a mixture of baseline performance and baseline benefit. And if one falls below the other the subjects aren't punished. That's economics in a bubble or perhaps the utopian model. Crack and hookers Well, of course. Yea, stay out of my crack and off my hookers .... There you go again (to quote a famous diaper-wearer), drawing a connection between taxation and spending. Here's a quick tutorial for ya, counselor: - Reagan - incr spending and cut taxes - GHWB - cut spending and incr taxes - Clinton - cut spending and incr taxes - GWB - incr spending and cut taxes I don't see a trend of taking from one and giving to the other, do you? I see a trend of agendas to either fuck the country up with their deluded vision of massive military bullying, versus trying to bring things under control. For your point to be made, there would have to be a trend of an admin/congress increasing taxes and increasing spending, esp social spending; I just don't see that. To try to use as an example a system that takes from the rich and gives to the poor is such a 5th grade version of the economy that it baffles me how a genuinely smart guy like you can illustrate that. Of course control of the underclass requires condescension. I object when politicians pander to the rich and establish a tax code that leads to destruction, as with crusty Ronnie the fascist turd, the Coolidge/Harding/Hoover criminal trio in the 1920's and of course GWB. Oh that's sooo clever. I'm in that group of the lower 80% that holds 7% of the cash, so I just don't have much. How about if I make it to the upper 20% and then we'll talk....what's that? Class mobility is virtually gone in the US? I know, so don't hold your breath for me making it there in this lifetime.

If you're going to make ridiculous asserts, at least back them up with an example or 5.

To hear himself speak (write). Also to let everyone know how much more intelligent he thinks he is than anyone here because he has all the answers. (Pssst, just read some of his post and you'll see what I'm talking about.) Thanks for contributing so much. The point is that we are understanding what got us out of the GD. To answer that you would have to understand the overview of the GD, which you clearly do not, so you post nothing and fly. Why not look at data and post something substantive.