E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Brent Stirton/Getty Images
Among all countries studied, Mexico has the lowest amount of public social expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
By Michael B. Sauter and Charles B. Stockdale, 24/7 Wall St.
The widening gap between the rich and poor is not just an American problem. According to a new study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, income inequality in most economically developed countries is the worst it has been in nearly 25 years. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the OECD’s report and identified the 10 countries with the worst income inequality.
“In OECD countries today, the average income of the richest ten percent of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10 percent,” the study reports. And in many of these countries, income inequality is increasing as more and more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich.
In some countries the gap is even more pronounced. The income of the bottom 10 percent of earners has actually declined while the income of the top 10 percent has increased. In Israel, Turkey and the United States, the average income of the top 10 percent is 14 to one compared to the bottom 10 percent. In Mexico and Chile, it is an astounding 27-to-one.
24/7 Wall St.: Countries where people live longest (and the link to healthcare)
In many of the countries with the greatest levels of income inequality, there is also very limited public social expenditure. Seven of the 10 countries on this list spend below the OECD average — as a percentage of GDP — on social benefits. For example, the share of unemployed who receive benefits in both Chile and Turkey are less than half the OECD average. Mexico has no unemployment insurance at all.
The 10 countries on this list are ranked by their levels of income inequality using the Gini coefficient, where zero represents perfectly equal distribution and one represents maximum inequality. Also included are the change in income inequality from the mid-1980s, employment rates and the change in income for the rich and poor. While inequality has worsened in most countries, the situation has improved in some. Even in these countries, however, inequality remains at historically high levels.
1. Chile
- Gini coefficient: 0.494
- Change in income inequality: n/a
- Employment rate: 59.3 percent (4th lowest)
- Change in income of the rich: +1.2 percent per year
- Change in income of the poor: +2.4 percent per year
Chile is one of the few countries where the income of the poor increased at a higher annual rate than the income of the wealthy, 2.4 percent to 1.2 percent. Nevertheless, the South American nation has the worst income inequality among the 27 OECD nations examined. Chile has a particularly high rate of self-employed individuals, primarily because of its large farming class. The income ratio of the top 10 percent to the bottom 10 percent is 27-to-one.
24/7 Wall St.: Happiest countries in the world
2. Mexico
- Gini coefficient: 0.476
- Change in income inequality: +5.1 percent
- Employment rate: 60.4 percent (8th lowest)
- Change in income of the rich: +1.7 percent per year
- Change in income of the poor: +0.8 percent per year
Mexico has one of the highest rates of income inequality. Among all OECD countries, Mexico has the lowest amount of public social expenditure as a percentage of GDP. It also has the lowest unemployment benefit recipient rates. Finally, the country has the lowest minimum wages as a percentage of average wages.
3. Turkey
- Gini coefficient: 0.409
- Change in income inequality: -5.8 percent
- Employment rate: 46.3 percent (the lowest)
- Change in income of the rich: +0.1 percent per year
- Change in income of the poor: +0.8 percent per year
Turkey was one of the few OECD countries to experience a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor, with income inequality improving 5.8 percent between 1985 and 2008. However, it still has the third-highest income inequality among the countries in this study. Part of Turkey’s problem is a relatively low number of government programs to aid the poorest citizens. The average government social expenditure among OECD nations is close to twenty percent of GDP, while it spends just above ten percent — the third-lowest percentage. The wealthiest ten percent of Turkey’s residents make 14 times more, on average, than the poorest ten percent.
Read the complete list of 24/7 Wall St.'s Countries with the widest gap between rich and poor, including where the U.S. ranks.
Leave a Comment:
Good! Then the top 10% can use that amassed wealth to create jobs!
Right?
Here's a quote from the section for the United States;
"As with many other countries in which income inequality has increased, average income has gone up across all income groups since the mid-1980s, but not equally"
So all income groups, including the 'poor', have prospered, but because the prosperity of the 'rich' grows faster than that of the 'poor', this is represented as a 'bad thing'?
Would it be better if we had more 'income equality' by making everyone 'equally poor'?
The other MAJOR FLAW with the study is that it excludes 'transfer payments' to the 'poor' like food stamps, free medical care, tuition grants, rent subsidies, etc. (worth as much as $25,000 per year for some families) that would move them into the 'middle class' if they were counted. The other major flaw in the recent 'income disparity' study was that it cut off with figures for 2007, when prosperity was at a peak. If it was carried through to 2010, much of the 'disparity' disappears because the 'rich' lost much more of their wealth than the 'poor' did because of the recession.
You're being 'played' by the media.
Roy , I think not only your take on the article is biased but your ideology is so entrenched you'd never understand the plight of the poorer people wherever they may be. The bottom line is that the gap is increasing and so are the levels of poverty and yes Roy , that very much includes the USA and if not for the media , who would expose things like this ? I'm sure not you Roy.
Roy,
I'm curious how you come by the idea that since the income of the poor has also increased, but not as rapidly as that of the rich, that the poor have also "prospered" - just not quite as much as the rich.
From where I sit, it can hardly be true that the poor are any better off than they ever were. For one thing, many of today's poor were once middle class, but were expunged from the workforce by outsourcing by their employers. Other victims of outsourcing have been able to find jobs for half the pay they received from their former employer. And then, when you factor in the fact that the cost of living has been rising much faster than pay rates for years. How do I know this? I've lived it! I am making half of what I made fifteen years ago when I was expunged due to a "reorganization" of my department in a large multinational company. And the cost of living has risen enormously, it has come close to doubling. That's my experience, and I am certainly not alone. That the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poor in this country is beyond dispute. And then you say the rich lost more of their wealth than the poor during the recession! Of course, the poor didn't have much to lose. But then most of the rich have made their money back and then some. And even when the scale of their wealth was down temporarily, they still got by just fine. I know a couple of rich people. They made their money through their businesses and deserve to be rich - I certainly don't begrudge on that. But every wealthy person I know didn't suffer so much as a hiccup during the downturn. Their business slowed down somewhat, their profit margins weren't quite as large, but they certainly didn't lose money at all, they just didn't make quite as much.
As for "transfer payments" I plead guilty. I get free health care from the VA. Does that make me a freeloader? I think not. I earned it by serving my country in the Viet Nam War. I get no food assistance, even though I probably qualify. I still get enough to eat because I do odd jobs for $10 an hour, like fix cars. I am a musician and ocassionally play at weddings and bars, etc.
Roy, your viewpoint is consistent with that of the Tea Party. You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint. I just think your Tea Party-oriented worldview is potentially destructive to the well being of our country. It's "I got mine, and if you got pinched out, too bad. Go Eat Cake!
Russell-2157151 "Roy, I'm curious how you come by the idea that since the income of the poor has also increased, but not as rapidly as that of the rich, that the poor have also "prospered" - just not quite as much as the rich."
Because that's what the link in the article said when it stated;
"average income has gone up across all income groups since the mid-1980s".
I thought that was pretty clear - what part didn't you understand?
My point was that these so-called 'studies' on 'income inequality' do not take into consideration the value of benefits that the 'poor' get. A 'poor' family that gets $20,000 of free 'benefits' per year could well be better off than a lower middle income family that doesn't qualify for benefits because of excess income. I have seen actual examples of this, and if we're going to make comparisons about 'income inequality', then let's count the value of everything so we're 'comparing apples with apples'.
I'm not a 'Tea Partier', although I do share some of their views on sustainable fiscal responsibility. As for your VA benefits, I have no problem with providing health care for EVERYONE - indeed, I have always supported Universal health care - but we need a realistic mechanism to pay for it.
Chuck Tillinghast
So you think I'm biased, and I think you're biased - Whoopdedoo.
Yeah but look how happy they are! LOL
Only in the corporate media would they headline a story about wealth inequality and poverty in countries like Mexico with a picture of three kids from one of those countries laughing and playing.
The hacks in the corporate media know every trick. They know that more weight is given in the brain to visual information than information you read.
Like the old saying goes: seeing is believing.
There has always been rich and poor, however, when the Clinton admin mandated banks give home loans to unqualified buyers (ushering in the housing crisis), all is did was bring this country down. So many of them didn't qualify for a reason...they took out 2nd's and bought cars and walked away. I saw it. The dems attempt to equal the playing field only made things worse. The politicians (Dodd and Frank) pushed through the dodd frank act and MF Global still went under. These clowns don't know what they are doing. They guess. Barney Frank enriched his portfolio and so did Nancy Pelosi. They scream class warfare, but are just helping themselves and leaving our country in a shambles. Look at Detroit.
Mexico will NEVER take care of its poor. HELL,They are living in this country getting Welfare,free education,free healthcare AND send about 20 Billion a year BACK to Mexico. Great deal for Mexico's rich. They don't have to pay and the potential trouble makers are in the US.
Slodon, did you happen to notice who was two spots below Mexico on that list? Or did the Brown Rage come over you too quickly?
Maw, so then you are OK with staying at #4 on that list?
So much for Trickle Down Economics!
they do not create jobs, they buy estates in France, yatchs and other unnecessary luxuries. How unethical and immoral when so many around them, struggle to survive.
In 1789PreBastille Paris the widened gap between the "aristocaps'" and the "people" came to an End in what was called the French Revolution It will happen here since there is no end to the evil rich's greed which buys politicos like the gop line up we see. They line up with their "titles" and "images"
Folks, THIS IS a criminal line up. These republicanCrimeCartelsoldiers BELONG IN PRISON where they cannot harm America any longer. Do NOT be decieved by their "titles" and business suits they belong in STRIPED PRISON GARB. They are part and WHOLE of the KingGeorge TheVacuumBrained crowd. They put America into ENDLESS RUINOUS Wars, and with 'Minc'em Rommel, a war with iran yet!, enabled the cleanout of OUR Treasury by wall street shylocks and moneychangers and have assiduously blocked An American NationalHealthcare System to favor insurance company super profits and money for their rich tax evation bonuses and their GodDamned Wars!! Did You know that the ceo of UnitedHealthcare TOOK Home $128,000,000CASH for his 2008 salary year??
IMAGINE THIS!! Our Country, America, is THE ONLY "civilized " country with NO NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM!!! Smokin'matzohBalls even vietnam has a National
HealthCare System!!! These are the VILLAINS who created this national OUTRAGE andDisgrace!!
In 1790Paris They would be on THE MADAM'S Bastule with their necks in her lunette
waiting for their FREE OPERATION
To..Maw.""""
Clinton mandate huh..
White House, Office of the Press Secretary
October 15, 2002
President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership
President George W. Bush hosted the White House Conference on Minority Homeownership to discuss public and private sector efforts to address the homeownership gap and increase the number of minority homeowners in America.
In June, President Bush announced the national goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million by the end of this decade. Meeting the President's goal will not only help more Americans enjoy the benefits of owning their own homes it will also help strengthen America's economy. According to a study released today by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, meeting the President's goal will involve $256 billion in economic activity in the form of construction and remodeling jobs, spending on household goods, and other benefits.
Background on Today's Presidential Action
In June, President Bush announced an aggressive homeownership agenda to dismantle barriers to homeownership by providing down payment assistance, increasing the supply of affordable homes, increasing support for self-help homeownership programs, and simplifying the homebuying process and increasing education. The President also issued "America's Homeownership Challenge" to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to join in his effort to increase the number of minority homeowners by taking concrete steps to tear down the barriers to homeownership that face minority families.
The Bush Administration is working to increase homeownership among minority Americans through a number of new and expanded initiatives, as well as through ongoing programs administered by HUD and other federal departments, including
....
The fact is there is no comparison to our poor compared to most other countries. Here you get free housing, food stamps, a cell phone, most have cable, Internet access, decent clothes. In addition virtually all have central heat, safe running water, refrigerators, stoves, and a bed. Compare that to the slums of Mexico, Chile, and most other countries. Most poor here would be considered well off middle class by most of the worlds population.
P.S. I've lived near public housing for substantial portions of my life and I've yet to see skinny waifs with bloated stomachs, on the contrary, like the general population, most are overweight if not downright obese.
Of course ROY could read this article, which is a clear warning, and twist it to fit the far-right argument that every man, woman, and child for his/herself is a good thing. They would like the US to become like Mexico, with no unemployment insurance and a 27 to 1 gap between rich and poor.
Note this correlation: Countries that do not provide social programs are the same countries with the largest gaps between rich and poor.
Note this fact: The US is now on par with Turkey with a 14 to 1 gap between rich and poor. Apparently this makes the right-wing proud.
But this article only addresses the gap, not the results. The bigger issue is the importance of a strong middle class, not just for a healthier economy that benefits everyone including the rich, but also an important element for democracy. The ignorance from Roy and his ilk never ceases to amaze.
Agreed, conservatives are unable to think beyond a bumper sticker. Here's the "if P than Q" statement for trickle-down tax cuts for the rich: If the rich get more tax breaks, more will trickle down to me. How idiotic to think that if the rich get richer somehow you will get rich too. Heck, how can anyone believe in the "invisible hand" or any other superstition in voodoo economics?
Whether it's "If we fight them over there we won't have to fight them here," critical thinking is not the right-wing's strength. I could provide a long list or illogical statements like these.
Capitalism works great for the few at the top but not for the many at the bottom.
TruePatriot-445959 "Of course ROY could read this article, which is a clear warning, and twist it to fit the far-right argument that every man, woman, and child for his/herself is a good thing."
So my saying that we should count the value of 'in-kind' benefits that the 'poor' get should not be counted when considering the 'income disparity'? If one family makes $20,000 per year but gets $20,000 of additional benefits in the form of food stamps, Medicaid, rent subsidies, utility assistance education grants, etc. they should still be considered 'poor', while a family that makes $25,000 per year and gets no help from the government should be considered 'middle class'?
And you think that MY call for including the value of 'in-kind' benefits is 'TWISTED'?
You have a strange way of making comparisons, but then it does fit right in with the liberal philosophy of making everyone 'equally poor' and thinking that's the only 'fair solution'. Unfortunately, if you punish those who are responsible and reward those who are not, you will merely encourage poverty.
Marlen, what other system would you suggest? Not trying to be sarcastic or give you a hard time. I'm just wondering what you think will work better?
Virgo
I was just pointing out that Mexico's Rich has no incentive pay for their OWN poor. COMPRENDE??
By the way I'm part Hispanic. My mothers family can trace its roots to the Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo areas of the 1820's.
Seems like this happened one other time in our history. Read about how we got out of the post ww11 era. They're plan worked good then, why not now. Who's stopping it. After the second ww war the 50's thru the 70's. We had growth, income, middle class was strong the country was healthy. We had steel companies, manufacturing companies country wide. What happened? The economy has been backing up since the mid 80"s. What caused this to happen, anyone have any ideas? This just didn't happen in the last few years. Read, use your computer. Google is a wonderful tool. Don't believe anything until you look it up.
you have to understand roys point of view.hes well off.are you back from your months vacationing in costa rica?phantombeast until we do have starving people here like p111 points out i doubt we'll see mobs escorting the rich to the gallows.p111 you might check just how well most of our poor actually do live.its not nearly as good as your propaganda would like us to believe
ROY WILSON-336103 Roy, YOU FAIL. From 1947 to 1973 the lowest 20% of incomes grew faster than the top 20%. And guess, what? This was the golden age of the US and taxes on the rich were much, much higher! The top tax rate was 90% over the golden age!! It was continually cut over the dismal age leading up to the present $hit hole that we're in.
well said mike
In the game of musical chairs, house flipping, many Americans were sittinging when the music stopped. They did real well. They now are feeling some guilt, so of course they must believe the poor are not too bad off and, after all, they caused the crash by taking out mortgages they could not afford. If they were left standing when the music stopped - well the big banks had to find someone to buy the flipped houses of those rushing to find a chair. Don't ever give suckers an even break.
I wonder how many people bothered to click the link to discover the United States was number 4 on the list. What is even more fascinating is that our staunch allies, Canada, Australia and Great Britain are also on the list. What that tells me is that we in the free world aren't doing too great with our high minded ideals.
Sad commentary when 3 of the richest countries are showcased next to some of the poorest. I notice all of those "barbarous" countries we are fighting in the Middle East didn't even make the list... hum...
Amunaka #38.12
Read a book titled " The Big Short " and you might be able to get your facts straight .
america a rich mans utopia and a working mans nightmare
mudsharktoo
If you recall your history of WWII you would know that the US was the ONLY country in the World with an INTACT Manufacturing Base at the end of the War. It took the other Industrial Nations 20 years or so to recover from WWII. THAT IS WHY WE WERE NUMBER ONE IN THE MANUFACTURING WOLD until the 80's. If you want to know what happened to our Steel Industry just look to the Steel Strike of 1959 and it's ramifications.
slodon: After WWII we sent bundles of money to rebuild Europe, to prevent another war in the "Marshall Plan." Europe built new factories; we still had the old ones. It didn't take that long to rebuild; they were up and running in the 1950s; by the early 1960s, Europe was a sparkling gem, while American cities were seriously falling apart. But in the early 1960s, America was still way ahead in industry. Nixon "deregulated" the steel industry; immediately afterward in the early 1970s U.S. Steel raised its prices, so immediately companies put in orders to Africa and elsewhere: cheaper steel if not as good. So, suddenly all across the Midwest, steel mills closed, and because Nixon did not give a helping hand, or put regulation back, these industries were not able to reopen. And Reaganomics killed the rest of the industry. Big credit companies (for example, Ford Credit) sold homeowners on "Home Equity Loans" which had previously been illegal in many states; Detroit was wiped out when homeowners were sold on these loans. Such loans increased the assessed value of a home, so that the homeowner found themselves suddenly paying a huge fee every month, and with variable interest, it could double, or there could be a balloon payment due at the end. But is Ford Credit going to rebuild Detroit? Every single downturn in American economics can be traced to Republican policies.
Want to raise taxes on the rich now? You might be in conflict with President Obama:
“First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession. …. We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.” – President Obama, 2009
TruePatriot...it never ceases to amaze me how so many people associate "rich" with "evil" and "republican", yet that theme flows through comment after comment. Let's look at a few facts:
Rich Democrats:
Kerry: Net worth $193 million.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.: Net worth $82 million
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.: Net worth $76 million
Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo.: Net worth $66 million
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.: Net worth $55 million
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.: Net worth $55 million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: Net worth $45 million
(http://www.newsmax.com/US/Democrats-Republicans-wealth-congress/2011/09/06/id/409898#ixzz1aTchKlVw)
Ted Kennedy was worth an estimated $49 million when he died.
You might also want to look up the net worth of Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Moore, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Keith Olbermann and many other Democrat/Liberal 1-percenter elites in Hollywood and the music industry.
You might want to make a note of the (D) behind many of the recipients of campaign contributions from these billionaires: Larry Ellison; Paul Allen; Eli Broad; Ron Burkle; and especially these guys, Charles Kushner, convicted of witness tampering, tax evasion and making illegal campaign contributions; Jeffrey Epstein, billionaire and convicted child sex offender.
(http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations)
Michael Bennet (D) profited at expense of other investors, including a teacher’s union.
http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/news-mainmenu-2/1-latest/5696-bennet-made-fortune-in-corporate-raid-michael-bennet.html
I know it will be disheartening to many to learn that not every rich 1-percenter is an evil Republican.
Sadly, the “facts” will be boring to many, as fantasy is much more appealing. Like Thomas Sowell said, “Reality simply does not have the pizzazz of clever talking points.”
Are you serious? People making $20,000 a year (before taxes)do not receive $20,000 in benefits. When I made $20,000 a year I was eligible for $290 a month in food stamps and Medicaid for my 5 year old. My 16 year old and myself were not eligible for Medicaid. I was not eligible for rent subsidies, I probably was eligible for power assistance, however you are only allowed to apply at the beginning of the year. Power assistance for one year comes to $1,500.00 maximum. I also was not eligible for any educational grants.
FYI, I used the medical twice, for a dental check-up and a health check-up.
Mexico is the model for the right wing "free market" advocates from K Street - Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, the heritage Foundation, the Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, and a long litany of others. Essentailly, the Republicans and their current masters, the Tea Party, intend to entirely destroy the nation's middle class, concentrate welath in the hands of a few, and pretty much own the government by way of a corporatist state.
What are their tools to achieve this end? Well, yeah, money right now is the big one - huge campaign donations to faovred right-wing Republicans, well-paid lobbyists who deliver the instructions, friends and family members on various payrolls, and a "revolving door" for officeholders and staffers - all detailed in depth in Thomas Frank's book, The Wrecking Crew.
But more significant is the ideology the puppet masters promote: So-called "free markets," deregulation (or the gutting or regulation by putting incompetents and/or industry-friendly staff in place), eliminating social safety nets, "privatizing" government assets and operations (essentially, making a gift of public funds to private interests), and of course as much as possible eliminating major organs of government (such as the Department of Education, the EPA, OSH, the Energy Depratment, etc.).
This is the mantra of the right-wing "reformers" who in fact seek to undertake a coup d'etat and overthrow the United States government.
It is why the election of 2012 is so ver, very important. Literally the fate of the nation is at stake. What kind of America does the public want? Should the United States continue on a path, laid out by Republican ideologues since the Reagan Regime, that eventually replicates the sorry conditions in Mexico, or should this country turn toward a more hopeful and equitable future?
Tallicagrrl
How did you not qualify for education grants if your income was only $20k. The only way you didn't qualify for the PELL is if you were a convicted drug felon or you already had a Bachelor Degree!
That along with the food stamps and the utilities subsidy is right at $10k per year. Also the just because you didn't have to use medicaid for your son doesn't mean that it wasn't there and if you needed it for something severe the benefit would have still been there.
You are all missing Roy's point here.
The link does say that poor incomes have gone up over the period just like rich incomes but not as much. To all of the economists that believe in "trickle down" everything is fine and working as intended.
It's why the Republicans don't see a problem as the economics seems to be proving what they preach, ie that "a rising tide raises all ships".
The problem that they refuse to acknowledge is what do the numbers look like if you factor in the rate of inflation and increased costs of everything from food to insurance.
See, you can say trickle down works if you ignore all the other factors and pressures on income. If you add in everything, the poor are not keeping up and actually have less to spend annually. It's that huge gap that comes into play then.
So, people like Roy are right when you look at simple income numbers, but they are very wrong if you include all costs. The real tally is that the poor are actually losing ground because of the extremely tiny rate they gain income.
The only difference between wealthy Democrats and wealthy republicans is that, wealthy democrats don't cry about paying their fair share of taxes...
i'm curious if the people that bash trickle down economics think it is different when they believe the trickle down effect will come from the govt? you know it is the exact same principle, right? a few people have a lot of money and are supposed to share... only the gov takes what it wants. the rest of us, for the most part, have to earn it.
No, McInCA, the problem with your analogy is that the government is not some group of elites trying to horde all the wealth it can. The government is "We the People". The officials that run it are "representatives". Government is meant to be "By us for us".
The problem is not that our government is bad, that is a smokescreen BS position offered by the front men that corporate America has put in place. Mostly in the Republican party, but both parties are equally bought now. The real problem is just that, money. Our "representatives" in government are paid for posers and that MUST change.
The idea that business can run the country better has been proved wrong time and time again. When profit is your main motivation, people suffer. The government, by and for THE PEOPLE is the only way to collectively handle social needs.
Don't believe the shills that hold our offices now. Their very mission is weaken government to the point of breaking it so corporations can further raid our treasury with no bid contracts and questionable appropriations. To deregulate until we can't breathe and our children are working in sweat shops.
These common misconceptions that government is some evil thing out to get us and not we ourselves are helping the elites gain their goal of total domination of our government. We cannot allow the corpocracy to continue.
Wake up, get involved and watch dog the people you vote for.
Big Rog in Michigan
"The only difference between wealthy Democrats and wealthy republicans is that, wealthy democrats don't cry about paying their fair share of taxes..."
Damn, that would have been hilarious if it wasn't so ignorant. Take a look at the long list of Obama appointees, when he first took office, that somehow forgot they were supposed to pay taxes including Geithner.
Pull your head out and realize that if either party can get away with not paying then that is what they are going to do.
Look at Kerry and what he tried to do with his yacht and tell us again how Dems don't whine about paying their taxes. They are the first ones to piss and moan when they get caught not paying them. I can think of a Rep from NY that heads that list...... can't you?
Go back and sit on your mommy's couch and ask permission to use her computer the next time. Let grown ups discuss this, you go get some warm milk and head off to nap time.
Amen Michael!!!!!
wake up America or we will also soon be on this list. It's time to pick up arms and take our country back.
I could not be happier about the USA being on the list...finally we have made true progress by weeding out the useless members of our society.
Yes it's hard to believe but indeed we are #4 of this list,due to the millions of jobs we lost over the last 10 years,the working class has been steamrolled by China as soon the WTO was in place,don't tell me that the rich are hurting at the moment. am I also a mad citizen ?? yes I am mad like hell,America better wakes up fast,this situation is unreal.
We're fourth on the list.
They only showed three. Wake up America or we'll be number one soon! Tax those filthy rich B-tards and create some jobs to build our infrastructure. We can improve airports, roads, rail, shipping ports, and mass transit. Get those rich corporate welfare queens like GE, BP, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Apple, Dell, etc. etc. etc. off of the no tax list. ROFL
Taxing the filthy rich will not help much if at all...who's going to supply the materials and equipment needed for these projects, Mother Obama?
The real solution is a long-term strengthening of the US dollar...this will take care of virtually all of our current problems by creating an incentive for capital to remain here and will draw foreign money back into the USA. This cannot happen if Obama continues to spend like a drunken sailor and Bernanke wakes up from his apparent hangover.
I'm just curious if you realize that taxes are lower now than they have ever been for the rich. When your great god Ronald Regan came to office the highest tax brackets were 80%.
So...
Where are the jobs?
And please don't whine to me about corporate taxes. That might be significant if any of the corporations actually ever PAID them but they use every loophole in the book and often end up getting subsidies rather than actually contributing anything.
Taxes and wasteful government spending are only a small part of the problem...the most important thing is making the USA more attractive for global investment. We have to support the dollar over the long-term or else conditions for Main Street do not stand a chance for improvement. Capital will continue to flee this country and flow into the developing world without even a second thought. Investors will continue to invest in low-risk, 'defensive' economy plays like Commodities and Oil/Gas over higher-risk, 'offensive' economy plays like High Tech or Biotech if the dollar continues to remain weak because the former promises a better return for less risk.
Currency strength is the most important underlying influence on investment (and therefore job creation), not taxes or even government spending. This was not always the case in the past, but with a new global economy in function, it now is.
jint109...keep spouting off the Economics 101 insanity. You're beginning to sound like a Democrat. Specifically, this Democrat:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." - – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session
OK...maybe two Democrats,
"...the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.” – President Obama, 2009
LOL Madcitizen
If they went one more we would be next in line as #4. I'd say we should have woken up a long time ago.
madcitizen---There's one party thats trying to keep us off that list...Vote Dem.
The biggest gain in wealth for those in upper income groups in this country over the last several decades occurred in the late 1990s while Clinton was President. There is little the government can do about who gains wealth and who does not.
Please tell us how we are so much better over the past three years?
Thomas, Illinois "madcitizen---There's one party thats trying to keep us off that list...Vote Dem."
Then we can all be equally POOR, but at least we'll have 'income equality'.
How's that "Change we can believe in" working for YOU?
The 'Bottom Line' question that Obama dreads is "Are you better off than 4 years ago".
Actually, "Change we can believe in" IS working out pretty well for me. I still have a job, a home and, due to the "failed" stimulus, my poor state didn't go belly up during the recession. We've had 21 months of economic growth. If the obstructionist GOP hadn't used every possible procedural maneuver to ensure their wealthy benefactors feel 0% of the pain resulting from the recession, the president would have accomplished much more in his first term. I say, four more years, four more years!
Cfin...tell that to the 8.6% to 9% that are being counted as unemployed, and the 15% that really are unemployed, they'll be so happy for you.
.
CFinLexActually, ' "Change we can believe in" IS working out pretty well for me.'
Good for you, but I doubt that the 6,298,000 people who have lost jobs in Obama's first 2 years would agree.
Here are the jobs figures according to the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics;
Average number of jobs in 2008 (Bush's last year) = 145,362,000 people working.
Average number of jobs in 2010 (Obama's second year) = 139,064,000 people working.
Here's the link to the official GOVERNMENT site to verify - Just look under Employed - Total;
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
IF the GOP/TP weren't so bent on keeping Obama as a one term president we would be doing much better than we are. They are obstructing everything to the detriment of thier own country. If you are so unhappy with this president you only have the GOPTP and congress to blame.
Roy - you're one of those not-entirely-stupid people who fancies himself a NY Times pundit, aren't you? You haven't got an ounce of intuition. You see things in black and white: you seem to take statistics and look for the efficient cause, not the primary cause. This is similar to what
Josh
If Roy is wrong in his statements why don't you give us YOUR reason for the 6 million Drop in Employment. Also tells us why the Unemployment rate has been steady at 9% for about 28 months. And I almost for got. Tells us why the 800 Billion Stimulus hasn't produced job one. Actually LOST about 500,000 jobs from Mar. 2009 till Oct. 2011.
To..Roy"""
If we were losing 700,000 jobs a month at the end of bush's term ..why was that happening do you think...
Slodon,
The reason is quite simple. Ole Mitch the minor in charge of the Republican'ts in the senate said it all. "Our only platform is to make sure Obama is a one term president, its not jobs, its not the economy, its to make sure Obama is a one term president." And to that effect, the Grand Obstructionist Party and their allies in Big Business and the banks worked to make sure the economy failed so to carry out the party platform of making sure Obama one term president.
And thats my opinion.
Because democrats took over congress and refused repeated requests by Bush to reign in Fanny and Freddy BEFORE we went off the cliff. Compare the first 6 years of Bush to the last two. Did Bush change? NO! Congress did.
Better yet, compare the dozen years republicans ran congress, (last 6 of Clinton - first 6 of Bush), to the last five years. No contest, democrats are supremely incompetent at running an economy.
As far as change you can believe in, from the poll numbers most people don't. He is indeed toast, the economy has been slowly creeping back because republicans have stopped the Obama disaster. Notice how as public employment has declined, private employment has picked up? Just like republicans said it would.
Only private sector jobs create wealth, public sector jobs destroy it. In the last three years, have the rich gotten richer and the poor gotten poorer? Who's running the ship? Obama. So much for liberal propaganda.
To..pill"'
Right ...
NYT
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
Published: Sunday, December 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
My question to this community? USA We the people, for the people, by the people. Who exactly is in total control of this country? Who leads us and makes our laws? GOP, DEMOCRATS, INDEPENDENTS. WHO is it? They ALL have one thing in common. It's $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Name one elected Senator or Representative in the federal government who is middle class income.? Big money runs this country. This country is no longer for the people.
mudshark remember when the greek prime minister was going to let the greek people vote on whether or not they wanted to go with the austerity measures the rich wanted to impose on them.i thought wow maybe a democracy can work.the rich replaced him almost instantly and the greek people were again voiceless.i completely agree this country is no longer for the people.the question is short of killing everyone in congress how do we make it one again
Amunaka "To..Roy"""If we were losing 700,000 jobs a month at the end of bush's term ..why was that happening do you think..."
Perhaps it had something to do with the failure of oversight of Wall Street by the Congressional Financial Oversight Committees controlled by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in the two years before the collapse.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Josh Houston "Roy - you're one of those not-entirely-stupid people who fancies himself a NY Times pundit, aren't you? You haven't got an ounce of intuition."
I'll stick with the facts, and you rely on your 'intuition'. As for the 'primary cause', I think both political parties have plenty of blame to share in that regard.
Bye - Got some football to watch.
p111 "Better yet, compare the dozen years republicans ran congress, (last 6 of Clinton - first 6 of Bush), to the last five years. No contest, democrats are supremely incompetent at running an economy."
Better yet, let's look at the last 30 YEARS - with links to actual GOVERNMENT sites; Of course, these are only FACTS, which pale in comparison with the 'Intuition' of Josh Houston.
Who's better at running Congress and the economy?
Since it's Congress that sets the spending Budgets, sets the Deficits, and passes legislation affecting jobs and the economy (The President cannot spend one penny that has not been authorized by Congress), let's look at the record of Congresses over the last 30 years (Through 2010);
JOBS (39,761,000 Net New Jobs)
Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,100,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 21,773,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 9,888,000 net new jobs.
DEFICITS (a) ($7.304 Trillion)
Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.
NATIONAL DEBT ($12.878 Trillion = 93.4% of all the Debt in our History)
Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.
ECONOMIC GROWTH ($11.873 Trillion of GDP growth)
Total Growth (GDP) when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $3.887 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $5.623 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Congress was split (8 years) = $2.363 Trillion.
Draw your own conclusions, but these are undisputed facts from government sources.
(a) Deficits do not equal the increase in the Debt because of the government's 'funny accounting'.
Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. Links to government data sites are as follows;
Jobs - http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
Deficits - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.3
National Debt - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
LOL
Magnum
I suggest that you do some research to further expand on your opinion. You just might change it.
If the Republicans are so Obstructionist why did we get-
Healthcare Law?
Cash for Clunkers?
The Stimulus Bill?
Appliances for Cash
The Weatherization Program?
The Extensions of Unemployment?
The Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts?
Or these
Hhttp://obamaachievements.org/ow did we wind up with ALL those things,plus more???
The job statistics are off-the-wall-whacky. If there are 300,000,000 people in the U.S., and about half of them are working, then that means we have child labor and forced labor among the elderly. There are also many crazy definitions of unemployment, including saying that somebody is NOT unemployed if they have either stopped looking or if they work part-time or take entry-level jobs some place else when the previous job had earned more than twice as much.
There are people who are sick and elderly that shouldn't have to work, but now do, because Reagan took away pension plans in favor of 401K plans, and those 401K plans lost a whole lot of money in the last few years. Hasn't anybody heard what happens when people are denied their "day of rest?" Read the Book of Exodus if you don't know.
what the?
I was referring to Roy Wilson's statistics. If half of the American population is working, then children (up to 18 years; at 16 years only part-time work is allowed) and the elderly (over the age when they are able to work; nothing says that people can't work if they want to) have to work. Of those who NEED to and WANT to work, many are out of work. Solution? A decent retirement plan. But our 401K plans were raided years ago, and now the Repubs want to raid retirement plans and privatize them, turning them into more risky 401K plans. The result? No rest. Gingrich wants to make kids sweep the floors of schools: we tried that with American Indian schools, and the kids couldn't learn, because they were spending all their time cleaning and not learning the 3 Rs, and college students can't learn because they are working full time, and then they will spend all their working time trying to pay back loans. And elderly who don't want to work now have to. So the Greedy Oligarchs Party gives no rest to those who want it, and no real income to those who want to work. The Biblical reference comes from the reason that Moses wanted to lead people into the desert: at first it was for a Sabbath day of rest to praise the Lord, but then, when the slavers were too hard hearted, it became a mass exodus from Egypt, about 500,000 people. America wouldn't mind an exodus, but what about all the American ex-patriots now who live and work in other countries? This is a real brain-drain, and it won't end until America has much better policies for employees. The "day of rest" also refers to times in life when a person should not work: would you want an elderly person with dementia driving a truck, or using heavy machinery? They can't, even if they would want to. Nor can babies. Who is the mother of children, the day-care centers? You see, the statistics that show such a large number of Americans who do have jobs who probably should be staying home, and still more do not have jobs but need jobs to pay for basic needs, really shows the strain on most families. That's what the.
You liberals have such short term memories it never ceases to amaze me. In 2001 the Democrats were hell-bent on making Bush a one term president. They even bribed Jeffords with a committe position to become on independent so they could gain control of the Senate. So don't throw stupid comments around like the Republicans do the country all of the evil. Because the problems started with FDR and were expanded by Johnson and now Obama. This country is never going to pay off the debt. There isn't enough money even if you raise the tax brackets back to when Nixon was president. No one ever wants to cut any spending ever. And the problem with Socialism (ask Europe) is there are now too many people at the top taking from entitlements and not enough of us at the bottom paying into it. My mother is 1 of 9. I'm one of 2. Boomers are going to outnumber contributing tax paying Americans very soon. They system needs to be revamped. I am happy to contribute to the SS program and forbear mine (I'm 35). They system needs to be changed. And you liberals can't have Obamacare and Medicare. There will be ever more waste and fraud. It's one or the other.
And to the whining about jobs. Many jobs in financial, construction and housing that are NEVER coming back. How many mortgage jobs are gone? How many construction jobs are gone? So neither party can get a jobs program unless they fix housing. Obama should have let it crash 3 years ago instead of his 3 band aids. He would have suffered at midterms but he would be enjoying a housing recovery now. He didn't create all the problems but he sure as hell hasn't helped the situation either.
John, all those people on the public breast or who benefit from there being a public breast don't want to hear your truth. They outnumber those of us who are neither on the public breast nor benefit from those nursing. The sense of entitlement in this country just astonishes me. I am a healthcare worker and deal with it every day - people demanding scooters when they can walk, people on Medicaid when they are typing on their Iphone with their long manicured nails....
it can also be called countries where gov. is big. I like to add that most Africian countries top the ones listed.
Why should that 3rd world pi$$ hole Mexico care about spending on the poor, They just export them to th USA and our bleeding heart liberals give them everything
Peter, ,,,where did you get the stat that largest wealth was during Clintons years? Searched the web and didn't find it. Are we making up facts again to suit our political agenda??????
commonsensedude,,,,,,you need a new and better fitting name,,,,,try rightwingpatsy
Mexico should be cited as the example of what American conservatives aspire to for the American working class. Take away all the social support systems and our country will flourish once again.
That's a lie. Socialist democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment when they took over congress Jan 2007. It is socialism that makes slaves of the common man. Just look at who's been bailed out and who's been screwed the last three years.
p111, take your meds. Then reread the stats. Thanks, nuff said.
To..p111"""
Republicans Push Tax Bill Through House
Associated Press
December 8, 2006;
WASHINGTON -- Rejected by voters and limping off stage, the Republican-led Congress muscled through a sweeping bill reviving expired tax breaks, extending trade benefits for developing countries and protecting doctors from a big cut in Medicare payments.
The Senate cleared the bill for President Bush's signature early Saturday by a 79-9 vote. Final adjournment loomed.
But Republicans dumped an unfinished budget on the Democrats about to take power, with the Senate barely meeting a midnight deadline to pass a stopgap spending bill putting the government on autopilot until Feb. 15.
The failure to pass budget bills for domestic agencies, said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., amounted to "a blatant admission of abject failure by the most useless Congress in modern times."
...
When the middle class is gone the money people will be extremely happy. Then this country will not be for the people.
Be patient America, be patient and buy arms and ammunition because going hungry isn't going to be much fun
More guns is always the best solution.
Metal is kinda hard to chew though....
@Sam Adams
"More guns is always the best solution"
You're damn right it's a better solution, especially after the complete collapse of this country and the roaming gangs of armed (and hungry) thugs comes beating your door down.
@whatsinaname
Not when you have a years worth of food and water on hand. The only metal chewing will be done by the aforementioned thugs.
Does almost everyone born start off from the same gate. Some will win and some will lose.
Really?
So you think someone born into a poor family with parents that didn't go to college is starting from the same point as someone born into a well to do family with educated parents... how naive can you be?
That's a lame a$$ excuse for failure. Millions of immigrants continue to prove you wrong. Even illegal aliens can come here and make a life for themselves.
The beauty of this country is ANYONE can be successful if they work hard enough, that's why people are literally dying to get in here. How many nations have to build a wall to keep people out?
p111, keep making up the "facts". It's the only thing you can do to pretend you have brain.
No. That is not true at all. Did you read the article? There is a great disparity between rich and poor and children do not have the same opportunities at all.
The tide comes in, the tide goes out.
and the middle class and the poor will be left high and dry when whats left of the tide finally evaporates into the laps of the rich.
It would seem that this trend can only go on so long before the poor stop buying @!$%# from the rich? than how will the rich become rich?
Stop trying to punish the rich. They could care less and there is nothing stopping them from going elsewhere. There are countries all around the world that would just love to have them and all the money they would bring with. Neither jealousy nor envy is an admirable trait.
Neither is obstinate partisan willful ignorance.
The rich will go anywhere that they like, but they leave behind a trail of tears.
p111, your posts are beyond belief. No one is trying to "punish" the rich. However, too much of the money is flowing into their hands and it is destroying the USA. The labor of the people who actually make the products that the rich are making their money from is being devalued and the VAST majority of people are on the losing end. It can't continue this way or we will eventually follow the path of the French Revolution.
THEN you will see some punishment.
Off with their heads!
Soon the U.S. will be prominent on this list. Useless rich people and their never ending greed.....
The ultimate greed is stealing what you haven't earned from your neighbor. The ultimate cowardice is having the government steal it for you.
Thank you p111, I'm glad you agree with us normal people about the ultimate greed. Now let's tax those stealing rich people and get our money they stole back.
midnightxtech
Finally we'll be number one at something again.
Midnight, click the link and read the whole list. I think number four is pretty prominent.
This is only news to those who believe the drivel coming out of 'fair and balanced' FauxNews... (Remember that slogan? As if telling you that made it so? Geez....)
Fox runs rings around all the progressive propaganda outlets, that's why their viewership is larger than all other cable news channels combined. You may hate free speech but it is a part of our constitution.
The reason Fox is number one (assuming it is) is that the other outlets are all split. Fox is the only one that caters to the right wing and so they all watch it. The others are split among thecable and the network stations. See, if you got yourself away from Fox, maybe you'd be able to figure that out as well.
And perhaps you missed the study that showed Fox viewers are the most misinformed of all viewers, more so than people who didn't even watch any news. But I guess that was just more left-wing propaganda. Jerry Springer is also hugely popular, but I think everybody knows it's a fake. Being popular does not make it accurate.
BTW, why are you over on the Fox news site?
p111 i was thinking the reason fox news viewership has expanded is we haven't been enforcing incest laws enough
Roy Wilson said the poor have prospered -- trying to justify the enormous increase in wealth among the rich...
please show me where the poor have prospered.
Read the article.
What people fail to realize is that the "perks" that the poor get are all beyond their means to enjoy. Example: food stamps don't pay for much. If you want to eat, you have to work and then you don't qualify. If you get a grant to college, you won't be able to afford to drive there, and you won't be able to buy the books, so you won't be able to do the work. And if you get a job, you will have to pay back the grant anyway, and you still won't be able to buy the books. All those "perks" look really good on paper, just so the right-wing can call anybody who is poor "lazy." It's all been done before. But the right-wing skipped a few perks: go to the AIDS articles, and look up the states with the most cases and the most deaths, and you will learn that the deaths occur because it is easier to get medicine in some parts of Africa than it is in those south-eastern states such as Florida. The only reason why the poor don't protest in Washington D.C. is because they cannot afford the travel costs and they won't be able to eat. Things are worse than they were in the 1960s, but people have no means to complain.
hasnt anyone been paying attention? we take (tax) the rich, give it to the poor, who in turn buy the rich peoples products. and a lot of them buy it on credit with interest so they can get even more stuff. then we import poor people through legal immigration (we allow more immigration yearly than the rest of the world combined, 10%+ growth in 2 generations this way). we establish these "people programs" like welfare and earned income credits that encourage poor people to reproduce and further grow the poor population. we dillute the labor pool with poor cheap hungry labor and wonder why wages stagnate and people cant find jobs. (economic hint: becasue people/labor are overly abundant) and then we wonder why this income gap keeps increasing. stupid policy on all sides of the political spectrum. so willing to blame the rich for greed, but its the poor greed that makes the rich richer...
Lot of truth to that. I also see both sides. Clearly there are a lot of people who abuse the systems, not all of them would be poor even without the assistance. I am all for fixing the system, but not throwing it out. It would be better handled on a community basis as they can more clearly see who is really in need.
I find it ironic that although we all argue back and forth, in truth we all want pretty much the same things. We just have different opinions on how to get there!
People need to assume responsibility for themselves.
Truly poor people should be helped to get what they need to get by, but not be able to get luxuries on our dime.
We all should be taxed a fair and equal amount.
Families should not get more welfare for having more kids. (I don't think kids should be a tax break either. If anything, they cost taxpayers more already. And yes I do still have a dependent).
We all want more jobs in this country. This is something we can do ourselves, by buying as much from local businesses as possible! With Christmas here, how about we try to get out of the convenient malls and Walmarts and try to find local businesses as much as possible
Wealthy corporations should not get any subsidies and they should pay SOME taxes. I personally think it should be lowered for all to even the playing field for all business (why don't small businesses get subsidies?).
We need to get rid of most if not all tax breaks, across the board no matter the income level. Everybody can pay something, maybe tax the first $20,000 (for all) at 5% or something. Anything over that can go up to 20% or whatever works.
We need to stop the arguing and try to find some common ground to start with or we are no better than congress, just arguing over who is right and not accomplishing anything. Maybe if we can all come to an agreement we can push it on congress (yes most wrongs are congress' fault, not Obama's).
They have refrigerators and microwaves and get to buy food stamps, also because they make less money they do not have to pay taxes. Roy, it is a benefit you should become poor and might as well take advantage of the system? Heck i bet you already have a fridge and a microwave?
Many are willing to live with the basics, these are multi generation welfare recipients. Others want more from life and are willing to work for it. I've seen both sides and prefer the latter.
To..p111"""
Funny ...theres about the same number of people making over 200,000 dollars a year as there are people collecting what used to be called welfare in this country...
High Income, No Taxes: How Big Money Beats the IRS
By TOM HERMAN, The Fiscal Times
December 14, 2010
For 2007, the most recent data available, there were about 4.5 million individual income-tax returns reporting adjusted gross income of $200,000 or more, about 3 percent of the 143 million tax returns filed for that year, according to an article in an IRS publication by Justin Bryan, an economist. Of these "high-income" returns, a record 10,465 showed no U.S. income-tax liability, about a quarter of one percent of the group, the IRS said. That was up from 8,252 the prior year, a smaller percentage of the group. As recently as 2004, there were only 2,833 high-income returns showing no tax liability.
From Health and Human Services
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is the program that is mostly commonly thought of when people find themselves searching for welfare statistics. TANF is a cash assistance program with a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime. Most recipients are required to spend a minimum of 30 hours per week in various work readiness activities
TANF: Total Number of Recipients
As of 05/26/2011
U.S. Totals
Average
FY 2011
4,489,654
I get sick and tired of hearing how good other countries socialized medicine is. In this story the top five countries for health care systems have a combined number of people of 208,5 million people. the USA has 308 million people to try to put under some sort of system. the size of our population won't support a system like tht. It is our system that pays for 90% of the medical research that these little socialist countries enjoy. They don't have to pay for the research. we do. What wil happen to these little countries if Obamacare stays in place and we turn into a socialized system. Who wl do the research for us. We won't be able to pay fo it. We won't be able to subsidized these countries socialized systems anymore. Oh well i;m getting old and one of Obama's death panels wil take care of me sou=on enough. it's you young people that are going to suffer the most as a result of Obamacare.
You got that right! Also they negotiate great drug pricing and we end up being the ones subsidizing their socialism. Make a law that we can not be charged any more for a drug than the best negotiated deal and their systems would collapse.
Both Canada and England have stated their current systems are unsustainable and both are already transitioning to allow private practice. If that isn't an admission of failure I don't know what is.
Blatant lie...and typical right wing partisan ignorance.
Not to mention size of population has nothing to do with the viability of a single payer system. Have you ever even been outside the US to live? I doubt it...because if you had you would realize how stupidly parochial your assessments sound to someone who actually has.
First clue: "I hate." This is not a very nice sentiment in the Christmas season. But to go on: "liberals." OK, the liberals are those who are liberal to the giant corporations and millionaires who pay no taxes. But to go on: "socialized medicine." That means medicine as applied to human beings. I suppose that you prefer medicine for aliens, because that is the only alternative. Medicine for ME and not for YOU means that when YOU get sick, YOU will give YOUR illness to ME, even if I have the best medical care in the world and YOU do not. Sure there are some illness that might not be contagious, although the pollution and radiation in YOUR city would be the same pollution and radiation that I would be exposed to in the same city. But do you want medical insurance only for broken arms and rare metabolic diseases, or do you want medical care to include major epidemics that take coordinated efforts to contain? I guess "social" takes on a whole different meaning then.
wasn't it bush that made it easier to get food stamps...why did he do that...
Because despite pretending to be conservative, he was for the most part progressive. He was not very well liked by most conservatives, just the lesser of two evils. Conservatives supported him largely on his 2nd amendment support, tax cuts, and supreme court picks, and a robust economy, (till democrats took over congress), but that's about it.
To..p111"""
Oops to late...
Honestly, I think it was so that the poor wouldn't complain about stagnant wages and the rich (who are the ones with the power to keep who they want in office) could happily underpay their workers. The poor could make up the difference in social programs. Unfortunately, the middle class pay for these benefits, not the companies that refuse to pay a living wage.
What many conservatives completely fail to notice is that social programs help allow companies to pay less than a living wage. I often wonder who the social programs truly benefit. Walmart, for example, pays their employees so little that their employees often receive medicare and food stamps. Then those same employees spend their food stamps at Walmart. Walmart is benefiting from the system on both ends. This is driving Walmart's profits sky high. If they had to pay a living wage, then there would be a reduced need for social programs, but Walmart would not profit nearly as much. So, who benefits from the social programs the most? The poor or the corporations?
Do conservatives really think poor people rather be poor and draw on social programs versus being paid a living wage? But, if corporations paid a living wage, they wouldn't see such huge profits and we can't have that happen, can we? The rich want their cake and eat it, too. They want their taxpayer subsidized profits, but they don't want to have to pay the taxes that pay for these programs. The solution, of course, is to blame the very people who they keep down, who have the least ability to change their own situation. If you deflect away from the real problem enough, then you can keep the status quo going and continue to rake in huge profits while people starve, freeze, and die for lack of healthcare.
It's no wonder that we are worse off than most 3rd world countries.
Notice no Scandanavian countries are on this list? They certainly pay good living wages and have socialized medicine.
"The country (Norway) has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system.
I really don't understand how anyone can knock socialism when you have perfect examples in the world of how successful it is?
"Some of the most prosperous countries—for instance, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, and, yes, Norway—also have some of the highest taxes. Norway, which in 2009 had the world’s highest per-capita income, avoided the brunt of the financial crisis: From 2006 to 2009, its economy grew nearly 3 percent. The American economy grew less than one-tenth of a percent during the same period. Meanwhile, countries with some of the lowest taxes in Europe, like Ireland, Iceland, and Estonia, have suffered profoundly."
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/20/norway-entrepreneurial-paradise/
This is no surprise and especially here in the U.S. as the gap between the middle class and the poor continues to shrink while the wealth gap increasingly widens for the wealthy. Yet, the Republicans continue their assault on the middle class and especially the poor by cutting social programs and other safety nets that they need. I have yet to see any documented evidence that the top 1% have created any jobs here in the U.S. over the past 10 years.People like Roy Wilson may as well become a hate-speech writer for the likes of fig Newton Goodrich.
That's a lie. Democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment when they took over congress Jan 2007. This whole disaster is on their watch. 9% average unemployment for three years, that's their legacy. Deficits averaging $.13 trillion, that's their legacy.
Have the rich gotten richer while the rich gotten poorer in the last three years? Who's been running the show?
Nice try.
p111 Try to get a job if you are homeless after your house is foreclosed. What is your address? That started under Bush; of course it's gotten worse, compounded by companies refusing to hire unemployed. Do you blame Pres. Obama for the caprices of the multi-national corporations (I-Got-Mine-So-I-Don't-Need-To-Hire-Anybody)? Do you blame Pres. Obama for their refusal to pay any taxes when they clearly make profits? If the profits are Pres. Obama's fault, then it is Pres. Obama's fault that the rich are getting richer, by your logic, but it is a very twisted logic to be sure.
p111: stop trying to rewrite history
Don't fall for the right wing BS they have amassed their wealth off of the backs of the working poor. I would have to make almost $50.00 per hour today to have the same standard of living as in 1970s.
That's a lie. The ultra rich are liberals like Bil Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros, all Obama supporters. It is socialism that makes slaves of the common man, capitalism allows anyone to succeed.
p111: You haven't lived through it, so either you are too young and have been listening to propaganda that others have told you, or you are so rich that you haven't lived through it, in which case you need to write better propaganda than this. Probably Gates, Buffet, and Soros and very few others are the only rich who truly do "trickle-down" their wealth to poorer people, the rest drain your money without circulating it. Those draining rich are not really rich, because money that is not re-invested has become devalued currency, a wasteland or landfill of unwanted and unused goods, totally worthless. The only way to keep value is to circulate money, but most of the current rich people have no clue about that.
Say what you you want about the rich and poor but ya gotta remember ...
Corporate taxes are paid for by the consumer...CEO's obscene bonuses are paid for by the consumer...lobbying is paid for by the consumer.. profits are made because of and by the consumer..and we are all the consumers ....no getting around that ...
And if the corporation isn't taxed, they'll up the price anyway and make windfall profits. Like as not, theirs is the only brand you can buy so pay up.
That's why we need to dump crony capitalism, (Solyndra, Sun Power, etc.), and re institute free market capitalism. Socialist central planning, government picking winners and losers, etc. never works.
Amukana: what difference does it make? Whether you tax the corps or not they will still pay obscene bonuses to the top guys, outsource jobs, lobby. As long as they are beholden to the Stock Market, the consumer and their (actually producing) employees will play second fiddle.
Amunaka so you're saying that if people didnt spend all their money on consumer goods, the rich wouldnt get richer? inconceivable!
To..BD""""
No ..Just who pays for it all...
Your sarcasm is underwhelming...lol
standard of living in the 70s huh? you mean where not everyone owned their own house? where familes didnt have 2 luxury brand cars in the driveway with rims, upgraded stereos, and GPS? and no one had TVs in each room, much less flat screens with cable and XBOX? or your computer and internet access used to access this site? or cell phoes for the entire family? or everyone kicking the latest and coolest pair of nikes? or multiple credit cards? back when people saved money to buy things?
yeah, the good old days...
Oh yeah, and no Internet...ROFL
Great photo. They may be poor but look how happy they are.
Proof yet again that money does not buy happiness. I grew up lower middle class and had a great childhood. One of my friends, in contrast, got a brand new Corvette for graduating JUNIOR HIGH! I doubt he was any happier than I was. My wife worked for a very rich family, their kids had to "buy" friendship by giving gifts, etc. I wouldn't want to grow up that way. God know how warped they probably turned out.
p111 growing up didnt you envy the rich kids.werent you jealous of them.from your earlier posts you make it seem like most poor people suffer from these maladies.morally bankrupt people that covet money at the expense of their neighbors are despicable.one of the reasons im not a republican anymore.i found it harder and harder to make excuses for republican greed and selfishness