What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
211 Comments
- drmobutu, on 03/12/2009, -12/+57The whole trouble with the economy, now, is that middle-class families don't have any more money to funnel up to the rich...the class war is over: The Rich won...the rest of us are just socialist losers, apparently...
- poopsybythebay, on 03/12/2009, -13/+57It is as if they just do not get it. The banks do not get it, Wall Streeters do not get it, the villagers do not get it, the pundits do not get it, Republicans do not get it, knuckle draggers who fight for wealthy people while they are poor do not get it, and the thing they do not get is.... the earth has shifted under their feet just as Obama stated.
- morningmatters, on 03/12/2009, -14/+56The whole "redistribution" theme is super lame. Money given back to the lower/middle class will go right back into the hands of businesses anyway as people start spending.
- Alheithinn, on 03/13/2009, -12/+49I love the cries of class warfare coming from the Right, and the accusations of "wealth redistribution" if that hasn't been the job of every government the world has ever seen in thousands of years of recorded history. The only difference is that now the redistribution will be more equitable. Rather than soaking the poor and middle classes to enrich the already rich, the rich will actually come closer to paying their fair share. How this can be seen as socialism is anybody's guess.
- JamesK, on 03/12/2009, -12/+42Trickle down economics says it's ok to have super rich people pay low taxes because they will spend money and make the middle and lower classes get some wealth but most rich people I know are mostly using it to buy big ass tvs made in Japan or BMWs made in Germany.
- inactive, on 03/12/2009, -16/+44Actual article headline: "Conservatives Are Blind, Deaf and Dumb to Class Warfare"
But they sure play a mean pinball! - neognostic, on 03/12/2009, -11/+36The wealth of this country has been shifted to the upper 20% since Reagan took office with his voodoo economics, which has now proven to have been a noble failure for the lower 80% of the population. Laws were passed that favored the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy for the last 30 years. Obama is simply correcting that horrible move by the neocons.
- morningmatters, on 03/12/2009, -8/+32The problem is that there are plenty of people who are more talented but whose talents are ultimately wasted because they are born poor and can't afford the proper education to move forward.
It should be obvious by now but there is little incentive for corporations to reinvest in the local community to breed talents because globalization enables outsourcing and offshoring of talents at a much cheaper cost. If this trend continues then the poor population in the US will grow much larger in a few generations. The government should reinvest in this country's infrastructure and in its people.
Don't take it from me either, Bill Gates has been advocating this position for years. What most conservatives don't understand is that many people who have money actually don't mind giving back in the form of higher taxes. Both Buffet and Gates have been for the so called "Death taxes" knowing very well that their children will be affected the most. Main while, the people who complain about taxes the loudest are those who are not even getting taxed at that bracket, or don't have the 2M that would be required for the inheritance tax to kick in. - Anomaly100, on 03/12/2009, -5/+28The right is throwing the world, "socialism" around without really knowing what it means, most of the time. They're thinking that this administration seems to want everyone to have the exact same amount. I don't know why anyone thinks this except for the right propaganda that Beck and Hannity are throwing at them. All that fear is making them make no sense at all.
- robdazomba, on 03/13/2009, -10/+28Also, the argument is meaningless given that Bush and his cronies spent the last 8 years redistributing wealth upward. Obama is just giving people in the middle class some of their money back.
- Alheithinn, on 03/13/2009, -6/+22LOL What a comedian. Can't even take you seriously, you clown.
- Khast, on 03/13/2009, -12/+26Trickle Down Economics = Fail
Trickle Up Economics = Win
Money in the hands of the wealthy don't filter down nearly as fast as it trickles up. The wealthy don't buy cheap merchandise, whereas the poor might. But the wealthy may own businesses which sell cheap goods, so they make the money on the goods sold. (Take Wal*Mart for example.) - hipnerd, on 03/13/2009, -7/+21Give money to lower/middle class people and they will spend it at businesses, pumping it back into the economy, creating jobs and building prosperity.
Give money to the rich and they just sock it away in an account somewhere.
Trickle down my ass. - novenator, on 03/13/2009, -6/+18if this is satire, it's too dry.
- robdazomba, on 03/13/2009, -15/+26"Any time that a liberal points out that the wealthy are disproportionately benefiting from Bush's tax policies, Republicans shout, 'class warfare!' In her book A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after ten or twelve peasants violated the lady, with the children still watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of her dead husband and then killed her. *That* is class warfare."
--Al Franken - inactive, on 03/13/2009, -2/+12In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealt ...
So, according to your chart the top 10% pay only 65% of taxes while owning 71% of all the wealth. Sounds to me like they need to have their taxes raised. - zeth006, on 03/13/2009, -2/+12Bravo, my man.
It bothers me how conservatives who're virtually untouched by the "death tax" are crowing loudly and repeating the same words that Dick Cheney echoed a while back in defense of its repeal.
As for "socialism," there's nothing much to it. The fact that there are some extremist conservatives repeating this term again and again without having a full understanding of what it actually means goes to show the party's falling apart and is out of touch. As an independent, I feel a bit ambivalent since I'd like to see an opposition party that can keep the Democrats honest. Apparently with Rush Limbaugh now deemed the spokesman of the Republican Party, that won't be a possibility decade. - ironhide, on 03/13/2009, -4/+13That's because they have most of the money.
- zeth006, on 03/13/2009, -5/+14@yeahwhatever58
I'd say you and your ***** Rushbo worshippers are "off base." You guys don't have a clue!
Neognostic is spot on. We haven't seen wages rise since the 1970s--if anything, they've dropped 16% when adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, prices on food and other necessities have risen as the rich have seen their fortunes balloon exponentially. - sulthernao, on 03/13/2009, -2/+11The reason we have wealth distribution (progressive taxes, etc) is because, as my economics book has put it, the social cost of pure unfettered capitalism is too great. While capitalism is the most efficient of economic systems, it relies and emphasis economic inequality. The economic inequality only gets worse as time goes on. The problem is that the social cost of economic inequality over the long term is far too great. That's why we have government and social intervention to help give economic opportunity even to those who are not already wealthy.
- HopeForTomorrow, on 03/13/2009, -5/+13Still waiting for elimination of income tax for a general sales tax.
That way, everyone gets taxed on what they make, but on what standard they live on. - shylove, on 03/13/2009, -10/+17David is just in a bad mood these days, he can't figure out how things could possibly go this wrong. But so is everyone else upset and there is getting to be more and more anger that no one knows where to direct it to.
But warfare is a failed paradigm for approaching any problem, The logic and language of warfare is pervasive in all aspects of society with it's dialectic of win/lose and us/them.
Similarly the tired old isms are not doing us much good either, dead ideas that ruined the last couple centuries and failed miserably.
We are interdependent on this precious and tiny jewel of life called Earth. No one wins when there are also losers. Dominance and submission subvert our mission to share the planet with a general standard of living that precludes the strife and immorality of ultra=rich and ultra=poor.
We must learn to live with our ancient instincts and emotions and with our conceptualizations in a way that does not rationalize inhumanity and human suffering, collateral damage others because it is also collateral damage to ourselves. it is not a grudging prying of wealth away from rrhe rich it is a matter making the world equitable enough to work effectively for everyone. To foster a morality that benefits everyone and lifts the human spirit above total selfishness and into enlightened mutual interest.
No island is really a man!! - MaxxusFlamus, on 03/13/2009, -5/+12they pay 60% when they control 90% of the wealth in the country.
- lewystud, on 03/13/2009, -7/+13no new burdens will fall on 95% of the American people - "bs"
- maz2331, on 03/13/2009, -2/+8Actually, those with large net worths keep relatively little money in bank accounts. It's generally invested in a variety of other instruments. This is especially true since FDIC insurance only goes up to $250k.
- sulthernao, on 03/13/2009, -2/+7While I do agree with your sentiment, you do realize that poor people are buying things made in China, right?
- siszam, on 03/13/2009, -3/+8The Constitution says the role of the government is to provide for the general welfare of the people. That would include basic human rights like health care and housing. You Republicans like to ignore large parts of the Constitution.
- zeth006, on 03/13/2009, -2/+7Wow. Some people just need to keep their day jobs lest they go hungry and poor. Being a comedian is NOT on his list of jobs to take on.
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -2/+7The whole idea of wealth redistribution is ridiculous. The rich already pay most of the taxes. And contrary to popular belief some rich people EARNED their money(This is a shout out to all the little boys and girls who read Robin Hood novels). They have as much right to what they earned as you do. Besides there are plenty of socialist government functions just meant for poor ***** like you to climb your way up. Like maybe go to college. But but I can't afford to go to college sniff sniff. Get a job. For the love of God get a grant loan something. They exist. The government provides them. FINANCIAL AID. But I just can't make it through college sniff sniff. Well then be a football player whiner. Seriously Arnold is right. Grow up girly men. Nobody is holding you back, but nobody is going to hold your hand either. You have no talents to make it big? then get some or ***** off.
And just so you know the whole notion of personal income tax didn't emerge until early last century. So no it does not have some historical merit. Seriously Washington would roll in his grave to see the nation of whiners and a government determined to implode itself and drag us with it. - inactive, on 03/13/2009, -7/+12The top income tax rate was over 90% during and after WWII. So stop yer bitching.
- jitterbits, on 03/13/2009, -3/+8Trickle down economics actually is more about job creation than purchase power. Purchase power is the argument that favors "trickle up" economics because everyone buys things.
- pyrator, on 03/13/2009, -3/+7Egde00 - I don't think your argument holds water either.
a) Being poor can mean you have very little money, not that you don't have any. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/th ... for the US Census poverty thresholds.
b) People may have become poor by having most of their money taken away from them. - UNCsucks, on 03/13/2009, -1/+5/s
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -3/+7Here's a theme I see over and over here:
"Money sitting in bank accounts doesn't help the economy in any way. Money being spent by people that don't just save it actually helps the economy over and over."
Doesn't help in any way? Actually, money in bank accounts helps the most. The bank lends it to people to improve their homes. To businesses to expand and/or buy inventory. THAT'S what creates jobs. Plus, the government allows the bank to lend more than a dollar for every dollar it has on deposit. So there's a multiplier effect.
On the other hand, Money spent "by people" largely goes to buy trinkets made in China by slave labor. Where's the big benefit there? - zeth006, on 03/13/2009, -4/+8"Taxes are meant to fund the government. If the government can't ***** function without unfairly taxing a segment of the population, the GOVERNMENT needs to cut back."
I think that's where the debate spawns. Reagonomics is going to become a relic of the past until further notice. Your point is valid if we can find solid studies showing those tax cuts to the top 1% actually contributed to the growth of jobs and our GDP. Sad part is even during the 8 years of tax cuts, wages didn't grow a bit. Zero growth.
You see, it's not a matter of us "hippy lazy" liberals/independents being greedy and jealous. It's a matter of having people pay what they owe without stealing from people like my parents and me. It didn't make sense for Bush to steal from our social security surplus to pay off all those tax cuts to the rich as well as putting us further into debt. It would be one thing if we'd been bleeding them dry and out of our own personal frustrations we decided to kick a dead horse. Problem is, that's not the case. The wealthy now have an obligation to indirectly give us back the tax cuts that were given to them. Societal elites they may be, but they are not exempt from the responsibility of helping us maintain the society. If anything, they are obligated by their virtue of possessing more power and wealth of shouldering a greater responsibility.
I understand where you're coming from. But the current crisis seems to show us that the rich elites cannot have money thrown at them in the form of tax cuts and be expected to do what we'd hoped: Raise the average wage in addition to employment. The employment was there before the mortgage bust. But the wage rises? Nowhere in sight. - inactive, on 03/13/2009, -3/+7The abso-*****-lutely worst thing about this thread? The ***** who couldn't even jump off of their neocon evil wagon long enough to have fun with The Who lyrics.
No wonder you people (neocons) act the way you do and say the things you say. You exist in a perpetual state of anger and fear.
MY props to all the people who were willing to get dugg down for having fun with the lyrics. Don't listen to the nattering naybobs of negativity. They are what I would call sourpusses. - MaxxusFlamus, on 03/13/2009, -3/+7http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/we ...
it's pretty close. - yeahwhatever58, on 03/13/2009, -4/+7I got news for you. It is already happening and has been happening, a little at a time. The more power and money that is transferred to the government, the more socialistic principles take over. Read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Check out his 10 planks of socialism and you will see how many of these are taking place in America today, at varying degrees of advancement. Communism is one natural extension of socialism that CAN take place after certain factors are in full swing. Communism coming directly from capitalism is not likely, but coming from socialism, it is more likely. That is how to "sneak in Communism".
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -0/+3I don't know. What makes him so good?
- DarkPrincess74, on 03/13/2009, -6/+9Money sitting in bank accounts doesn't help the economy in any way. Money being spent by people that don't just save it actually helps the economy over and over.
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -2/+5I have a masters degree in economics, and it's absolutely common knowledge that "reaganomics" (trickle down theory economics) was from its inception absolutely wrong and ineffective. How you don't know this while at the same time implying some knowledge of economic theory is beyond me...
Unless you're just an idiot. - inactive, on 03/13/2009, -1/+4Of course you're right. Once cap-and-trade gets going there will be an extra cost, though they're too smart to call it a "tax" on everything. Of course, that extra cost will only apply in the United States and Europe. So the last little bits of manufacturing that's still here will have to go to China and India.
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -5/+8"That's right. They get it from people like you and me and... gasp.. the rich putting their money in bank accounts."
Yes, so why is all that money sitting in bank accounts instead of being invested? - PuterPrsn, on 03/13/2009, -2/+5What? What? The "bailouts" haven't solved anything. The companies that were bailed out are back asking for more. The companies that didn't get bailout money are starting to get back on their feet.
We bailed out failing business plans, we didn't prop up the economy. We just gave them incentive to fail again rather than re-think their business. - sulthernao, on 03/13/2009, -2/+5Your absolutely right about marginal propensity to consume. But rich people have their place in the economy as well.
- zeth006, on 03/13/2009, -7/+10I'd say you're the one who's mentally deficient.
Jesus Christ. Bernard "Madeoff" just gets 150 years in prison and you conservatives are STILL fighting tooth and nail to defend 30 years of "tax dodges, trade scams, corporate subsidies, deregulation fantasies, financial hustles, de-unionization schemes, bankruptcy loopholes" tooth and nail even when it's clear as day that the middle class have been getting screwed over in the taxes all along.
Actually I apologize. I wasn't completely accurate in the list of tax-dodging schemes above. I sincerely apologize--for almost omitting "ponzi schemes" from the list.
There. Happy? - zeth006, on 03/13/2009, -4/+7Ditto.
The sad part is that the middle class conservatives are claiming it'll just encourage under class--and yes, the middle class too! (Don't ask me how!)--to become lazy.
I love judgmental hypocrites.
To top that off we now hear that Bobby Jindal only rejected 2% of the stimulus money that was given to his state. The dude has a loud trumpet to make himself heard but he ends up taking the big envelope eagerly when it's tossed at him. - inactive, on 03/13/2009, -8/+11The rich pay a smaller portion of taxes than the portion of wealth they control. Higher taxes for the wealthy, right now, are nothing more than an evening out of the tax burden.
- felman87, on 03/13/2009, -1/+4Bot? Same comment as kijjiji
- joshwehatetech, on 03/13/2009, -1/+4I guess they should go back to the pre-Reagan era of the top people paying an absurd 80% and see how things really wither and die. With the advent of the internet during the 80s and 90s we now have a global economy. If taxes weren't reduced in 1980 I don't believe things would have been nearly as good as they had been.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 225 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is