What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Tips to be first in line without camping out in the cold! view!
newegg.com - The Pre-Black Friday Sale. No Lines, No Crowds; Click and Save in the comfort of your own home.
290 Comments
- pintomp3, on 12/17/2007, -20/+85great, lets cut their taxes even more and take away what little social services are left for the poor. that will fix everything.
- fairley7, on 12/17/2007, -20/+80Welcome to 3rd World USA! Actually, there are greater differences between rich and non-rich in the US than in most 3rd world countries. The US ranks 87th out of 123 countries for inequality based on the Gini Index according to the CIA World Fact Book. The US now has the smallest middle class in the industrialized world (as measured by the fraction of households earning between 1/2 and 2 times the median income). Things will only get worse as long as our economic policies are dominated by free market fundamentalists and other servants of the rich.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/17/2007, -12/+43It's indicitive of how people in today's business world think. The first thought seems to be "how can I get obscenely rich" as opposed to "how can I make my company the best at what it does" or even "how can I innovate while making a decent living?" This is why you get business students who go into non-productive money making (i.e. commodities trading, stock brokering, etc.) or plan on starting businesses with the goal being to get bought out by a bigger company.
The whole "a business will NEVER do X because the market will punish it if the public finds out it does X" holds no water when a CEO and his cadre can do X, get rich in the short term, and leave the business to clean up the mess while they cart their millions off to their next boardroom position. The remaining millionaires in the company then use their leverage to get the taxpayers to rescue the now failing business.
Lather, rinse, repeat and wave at the limos as they use the overpass built over your shanty. - PoliceAtaque, on 12/17/2007, -5/+35I would hardly consider the internet unnecessary. Global access to almost limitless information is hardly unnecessary.
- Bartboy919, on 12/17/2007, -11/+40Thats what Ron Paul wants to do, Lets Go!
- MrWhite7, on 12/17/2007, -1/+22Wow... you have no clue what the Federal Reserve does... that's cute...
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -8/+27I am a poor man, who owns his own business. I'd be wealthier, but the federal, state and local governments have seen fit to enrich their coffers upon the sweat of my brow. THis so that the lazy and unmotivates may stay home to watch Judge Judy and Jerry Springer rather than contributing positively to society.
Let it be known that my company was started using my own risk capital. I am Christian and I run an ethical business. I endeavor to be wealthy, but God comes first. I desire to have the option of leaving money as my legacy to my kids without the goverment taking it, and if i so decide, I'd like to engage in philanthropic activities as an alternative to the government doing that task using tax dollars.
I find it humorous at the high degree of socialist thinking and at the high degree of jealousy against those who are or strive to be wealthy, by the have-nots who would rather complain and kvetch at the success of others and their hard work, rather than going out and making something of themselves.
Let the whiners and socialist malcontets begin negatively digging me, while the self-sufficient and hard workers hopefully will positive digg me. - SinkToTheBeat, on 12/17/2007, -16/+34Ron Paul also wants to abolish the federal reserve, THE largest contributor to the rich get richer poor get poorer phenomenon.
- gleongelpi, on 12/17/2007, -8/+26"The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans."
The only thing wrong with this statistic is that it includes more than 100 million who are not in the work force, including children, college students, non-working spouses, retired people, many of whom make enough to live relatively well (20k to 30k per year), those who chose a low paying profession for reasons of quality of life, and it does not include transfer payments to the poor. So, this statistic is highly misleading. - sjbdallas, on 12/17/2007, -3/+20Don't confuse the people driving hummer and bmws, buying big screen tvs for christmas presents, and living in a huge house as the millionaires. Those are the middle class folks who are leveraged to the hilt. They're just trying to impress each other and are the ones most vulnerable to what's going on in the economy right now.
- jmpeagle, on 12/17/2007, -7/+23this explain the mass emigration out of the U.S. into other more equality driven economies like all those Floridians risking their lives by jumping onto rafts and whatever they can find that floats to sail to Cuba. It also explains why the U.S. has a net emigration rate with Canada.
Oh wait...neither of those statements are true and I gave an example of one country that is considered fairly well off (Canada) and yet more people move from Canada to the U.S. than the other way around. This means that being a Canadian, you are more than TEN times as likely to move to the U.S. than an American moving to Canada since Canada's population is one tenth of the U.S. - stanleyford, on 12/17/2007, -17/+31The flaw of capitalism is that we are unequally rich. The virtue of socialism is that we are all equally poor.
- reeder, on 12/17/2007, -3/+16Some of you people are just hate-filled and insane.
- BassMastr, on 12/17/2007, -5/+17Who doesn't try and make as much moeny as they can?
- Tyr7BE, on 12/17/2007, -5/+16"the average European would love to have the standard of living that the government categorizes as "poor" in this country, because they actually have it a lot rougher"
Source? I'm pretty sure people in England, France, Germany, etc aren't exactly living in filth and squalor. In fact, some of the Nordic countries are considered much better places to live than the US. (see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hum_dev_ind- ... if you don't believe me) - TheCasablancan, on 12/17/2007, -1/+12I never read what you did, but maybe he meant a lower tax RATE. 10% of 30k is 3k, but 2% of 2 Mil is 40k.
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -2/+12BassMastr, read about Maslow. Once most people make enough money to satisfy their needs, they are not always as interested in making more but finding better things to do with their time. But! people who pay your salary know that and keep you making just enough so you have to come back every day just to survive. Then again, if making money *is* your hobby and turns your crank, go for it!, but kindly please leave the rest of us alone.
- brainster31, on 12/17/2007, -13/+23and in other news the sky is blue and water is wet
- LaughingMan11, on 12/17/2007, -5/+15The Times is just reporting what the Congressional Budget Office report says. So, we've come to the point where reporting a story with facts that that you don't agree with is "class warfare" and "treason?"
You sound like Ann Coulter. - terrordome, on 12/17/2007, -1/+10The "root of socialism"? Just... wow.
- Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -8/+17Oh, so, in order to truly be considered "poor" one must live in some sort of hut with no running water or other basic amenities?
Comparing third-world conditions and Western/American conditions is a classic apples-and-oranges scenario. In some countries, wealth is based on the number of farm animals you own or how many wives you have. By flipping it around I can make the case that the vast majority of Americans are dirt poor because they don't own a single goat.
Being poor in our country refers to the ability, or inability, to afford basic amenities. - courtjester555, on 12/17/2007, -3/+12Considering that the vast majority of Americans are carrying debt of some sort (credit cards, or at least a mortgage) then spending on unnecessary things is still bad.
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -2/+11keep cheering for them --- they'll reward you for your loyalty -- NOT
- dove316, on 12/17/2007, -13/+22Three quick points and then you can digg me down:
1. I have never worked for a poor person.
2. The rich keep doing things that make them rich and many of the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.
3. I'm glad there are rich people. These are the people who put money to work so we can all get home mortgages, build new businesses in the form of small business loans, have money to support the arts, donate billions upon billions to charity (see Warren Buffet). The other option is to have the Government take their money and we all know how good of job they do. 98 cents out of every dollar they take is flushed down the toilet never to be productive. - inactive, on 12/17/2007, -1/+9You sound like us.
I took a couple of draws in the last year and we lived off our line of credit while we rebuilt a newly acquired service business under our corporation.
In 2008, we expect the newly acquired business to begin turning a profit.
I pray to God you are blessed and find success in your business venture, and may I suggest you keep a bottle of TUMS on hand for the rough patches?
Regards - andy3109, on 12/17/2007, -9/+17I'm still confused. "The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes."
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-dece ...
Why is everyone bitching about the rich not doing their part? - bdogm, on 12/17/2007, -2/+10That's only income. Imagine the gap in assets.
- engr97035, on 12/17/2007, -14/+22The rich getting richer -- good! Love it!
After all, they pay most of the taxes. The more the rich make, the more revenue my country has to spend on stuff.
Wealth is not a zero sum game (unless your game is class envy). I can increase my wealth without making someone else poorer. Even the NYT says so (and they don't like my administration):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09eco ... - cococooky, on 12/17/2007, -1/+9Me.
- crazywarthog, on 12/17/2007, -2/+10The Ant and the Grasshopper, also known as The Grasshopper and the Ant or The Grasshopper and the Ants, is a fable attributed to Aesop, providing a moral lesson about hard work and preparation. Sadly, we have become a nation of grasshoppers.
- Jamihabs, on 12/17/2007, -2/+10My wife and I were in a similar situation. Although this year we are going to do alright and our future looks pretty good. We put everything we had, and then some, on the line. We spent four years on a roller-coaster of ups and downs. We came close to not making payroll a several times and only made payroll by not paying ourselves anything on a few months. And, all the while the government was, and is, constantly trying to get its hands deeper into our pockets to pay for so many, who do so little and need so much.
- SammyJr, on 12/17/2007, -2/+9This country was founded on the ideals of freedom.
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -3/+10“A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all,” Mr. Bernstein said. “It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone.”
At every income level Americans had more income, after adjusting for inflation in 2005 than in 2003, but the increases ranged from almost imperceptible for the poor to modest for the middle class and largest for those at the top.
On average, incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by $465,700 each, or 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation. The incomes of the poorest fifth rose by $200, or 1.3 percent, and the middle fifth increased by $2,400 or 4.3 percent.
Clearly most of the people blindly defending capitalism, or rabidly attacking liberals did not read the article to get an understanding of what the problem is. It's fairly clearly outlined in the section I took from the article. What is so wonderful about this system when it stops benefitting all of those who are working hard to make it work? - inactive, on 12/17/2007, -8/+15That is dumb, taking a snapshot of today since it is based upon decades of infrastructure building and social spending. But like bridges, the decay is latent. Just think of your comments when social security is insolvent, people are hungry again, and you cannot build roads and your business is weak because people cannot pay for them (look at Kelloggs during the depression).
- cococooky, on 12/17/2007, -0/+7I believe he wrote "Who doesn't try and make AS MUCH money as they can" I could work 60 hours a week and make $4000 to $5000 every week, but I don't need that much money so I work between 20 to 30 hours per week. Call me lazy, you would be right.
- joe122370, on 12/17/2007, -2/+9inheritance tax is double taxation and is illegal! The money I earned during my life has been taxed already there is no logical reason why my heirs should have to pay that same tax again. That is govt theft
- offwithyourtv, on 12/17/2007, -0/+7When you don't use quotation marks and don't use the same words, it's paraphrased, not wrong.
- crazywarthog, on 12/17/2007, -1/+8Hmmmmm ... the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners is 34.27%. The bottom 50% of wage earners paid 3.9% of the total of federal income taxes. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.1% of the federal income taxes. You keep taxing the most productive citizens they'll just move offshore or quit working then who will pay the difference ?
- there, on 12/17/2007, -4/+11 Pure capitalists tend to be as overly moralistic as surely as communists are. Rosseau had it right. There is an informal agreement between the people within a society and it's leaders. When the leaders become parasitic in nature and abuse their power (typically to pretend they are indispensable Gods).. they are eventually stripped of it.
This trend clearly cannot continue and eventually there will be a reckoning. - Ninnux, on 12/17/2007, -2/+9You know, I recall the French having this problem in the late seventeen hundreds. If memory serves me, they were able to work it out after about ten years.
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -3/+9Research what Carnegie wrote about the problem with retained wealth and how it concentrates over generations. Andrew Carnegie, formerly the worlds wealthiest man, you know the guy.
- DucoNihilum, on 12/17/2007, -7/+13The only necessary things would be food, water, and shelter.
A hut, some dirty water, and some grain is all we really need..... thank god we seek more than the necessary. - aikimann, on 12/17/2007, -6/+12Lets see, the average "poor" person in this country, owns a home, has at least 1 car, 2 tvs, a microwave, cell phone. Sounds like they're doing ok to me. Now, I'm not saying there isn't anyone who's really bad off, but the average poor person can afford basic amenities and more. Of course, you might say, well what about healthcare, so many poor people can't afford it! You're right, there are some who can't. But how many of those poor people pay every month for a cell phone, a car payment, cable tv? If people would prioritize their spending, and if the government would get their hands out of healthcare, and let some competition drive prices down, we'd be much better off.
- mscbuck, on 12/17/2007, -2/+8The rich are getting richer, it's true. But the poor are getting richer as well, just not as fast as the rich are. Just look at any of the research showing how greatly our purchasing power has increased in the past 50 years are so and you will see that everyone is getting richer. The problem is that because of the Federal Reserves current policies of lower interest rates and basically causing inflation, our purchasing power is on the decline. Getting rid of the Fed would be the first step to helping everyone out.
- jmpeagle, on 12/17/2007, -2/+8did you not read your statement? You are saying their opportunities are better in the U.S. than in Canada but that opportunity is somehow not related to quality of life? They would be worse off if they stayed in Canada or else they wouldn't have moved.
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Let them eat cake!
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -1/+6Newsflash. I started my business with my risk capital. I am the President of my own corporation. I run a business to enrich myself and my family by offering a product or service of good quality and at good value. I hire employees and I pay them at a slightly higher scale than what my competitors do. My employees and I have a employment agreement. I keep them working in a safe and ethical environment. I give bonuses and acknowledgment for a job well done. I offer benefits to them to sweeten the pot. In return, I expect them to bust their humps while on the clock. I expect them to represent me In a positive fashion while in the field. I expect a positive work ethic and enthusiasm from them. I expect them to show up on time, to be sober while at work and to cover my butt, while I watch out for theirs.
I am a capitalist. I expect the government and the public to stay out of my affairs and to let me run my business without interference.
I provide them with a service. A job to earn a paycheck. I owe them nothing else.
Any questions Mr. Marx, uh, I mean terrordome? - allan17, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Yeah, I remember something happening around then... If I could only remember how they fixed it...
- dove316, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Yes I did. Which part did of it did I mis-understand trying to paint the rich in a bad light?
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5"The USA used to have a very well developed economy with well maintained public inferstructure but all that is now crumbling due to the lack of funds." The quintessential leftist mantra is, Raise Taxes!.."
We look at the Carter years and remember the high 'Misery Index' caused by huge interest rates, and high unemployment. Looking back at JFK, we know that one of JFK's key economic plans included massive, across-the-board tax cuts, similar to those of Reagan. Much like the 1920's and 1980's, it was these tax cuts that led to the Golden Kennedy-Johnson years, and under Reagan a decent economic expansion, although the democrats will deny it. Apparently, it's fine for a Democratic President to push for tax cuts that will spur economic growth, but not for a Republican like Ronald Reagan, or as George W. Bush did.
To say that JFK's tax cut was any different than more recent cuts is a blatant lie. The question remains. Wouldn't it be better for the country as a whole to continue to lower taxes and to prune away at the massive budget used to run this country, which weighs heavily on the back of the taxpayer?
If I ran my household finances as this nation runs it's finances, I'd be in bankruptcy and in massive legal trouble. -
Show 51 - 100 of 291 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is