It was just like in a summer blockbuster movie. Down to the last second before the nuclear budget bomb was set to go off, would the bomb makers/defusers be able to stop fighting amongst themselves long enough to cut the right red wire and save us all? It sure had the main stream media on the edge of their seats what with every network running stories on the horrors that would descend upon us if it did explode at midnight.
On one side, you had the Republicans trying to blackmail their moralistic social agenda into this. On the other side, you had the Democrats pissing and moaning about… well, everything… as Obama stayed on the sidelines, doing nothing useful. And neither side not touching real spending cuts that would hurt their biggest contribu… er, um, constituents.
What did you think of the result? Was it worth the price of admission to see the popcorn chomping, fingernail biting, down to the wire battle to save Earth (the American taxpayer) from the space aliens (politicians) who wanted our woman (tax money) before they wiped us out?
Obama’s “scalpel” and the Democrats’ “do nothing and spend everything” means that we’ll have bankruptcy; the Republican reform approach means that we’ll have solvency. With the national debt approaching 100% of GDP, the debate comes down to bankruptcy or common sense. Time is fast running out.
>Better yet, addressing the revenue part (increased taxes to the 5% that own 95% of the wealth) is not even mentioned.
Wealth isn’t the same as income. The total wealth owned by this top 95% isn’t that high compared to annual spending and the budget deficit. And of course, once you start seizing wealth, you become a banana republic, and the income generated by this top 5% drops, and there go your income taxes.
And also, the top 5% don’t own 95% of the wealth, they own about 60-70%. To get to 95% of wealth owned, you have to go to more than 20% of the population.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
#86,
Looks like the rich got richer under Clinton. Just saying . . .
Total Net Worth
Top 1% Next 19% Bottom 80%
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
Financial Wealth
Top 1% Next 19% Bottom 80%
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%
Interesting article on income taxes.
http://tinyurl.com/2k4hkq
LL–two excellent posts in a row. What do you make of them?
#86 I won’t quarrel with the data because my point is still supported. A grossly disproportioned distribution of wealth is bad on so many levels.
Still, that’s another topic.
Don’t get distracted with 95% vs 70% like regular sheeple. That’s boring and left to simpler minds. The reality is that wealth needs to be taxed where it is. It’s how it works. I’d like to see taxation approach closer to what they were under Reagan.
In fact, if we tell the R’pug sheeple we need “president Reagan era taxation” , they will delighted. Problem solved
MikeN @ 85 said this: “Wealth isn’t the same as income. The total wealth owned by this top 95% isn’t that high compared to annual spending and the budget deficit.”
This is obviously not true. The government cannot spend more money than the entire wealth of the nation in a single year.
You can look here for another estimate: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+government+budget+%2F+us+gdp
Wikipedia says non-corp wealth in the US is between $50-55 trillion. The government doesn’t spend that much, not even within spitting distance.
So…
To your general point: government seizure of wealth equals the status of a “banana republic” is entirely wrong. Look it up.
Actually chris, the government is spending close to that much. The deficit alone is 2-3% of that number. Now consider what that wealth number means. It is not cash, it has lots of real estate, so if the government is seizing these assets, even if they were able to seize 100%, those values drop like a rock. See housing collapse that’s already happened x10.
Now on top of that, if you have government seizing wealth, then the income that adds to that wealth will dry up too, meaning you now have to pay for the full 3 trillion and growing budget. And of course you can only seize the wealth the one time, not annually.
In response to the budget negotiations over the 2011 budget, the President is now throwing out the budget he unveiled last month, and presenting a brand new budget. So he at least agrees with the Republican position or thinks it is the better one politically.
#91 yeah. Further up the thread you were all giggly about how the Teabaggers managed to score a few billions in tax cuts.
Now, you recognize my point that all this was political masturbation for loon sheeples like you. This is why you should be patriotic and exclude yourself from voting.
#93
It just can’t be. The government can’t spend more than the total economic activity, in any period. Can’t do more than 100%, right?
Logic would indicate that government expenditures are a fraction of the total GDP. I am will guess it is between 20-50% of GDP in a year, depending on what you include.
I’ve tried to figure out total US corp and non-corp net worth off the internet. I think it is about 100 trillion, with maybe a 15 trillion margin of error on either side.
You are off by more than a factor of ten.
Also, home prices did not crater because the government started seizing homes. Home prices were artificially inflated by the money creation properties of a fraudulent finance sector, and non-existent government regulation of same.
#96 home prices started falling when banks seized homes that the owners couldn’t pay for. Once the homes had to be sold, the market started dropping, and banks had to come up with more cash to cover their holdings backed by homes, then they had to sell homes to come up with this cash, making the market drop further.
Now imagine this with all stock properties.
#97
“home prices started falling when banks seized homes that the owners couldn’t pay for.”
It is going to sound really crazy, but the truth is just about opposite. A LACK of new mortgages being written popped the bubble. Everybody who wanted to live in a too-large house already had one. Lending standards could not go lower; they literally couldn’t give mansions away. Without the incoming supply of new loans the existing debt pools cannibalized themselves.
There is only one way to prevent massive criminality like that that created the housing, and other, bubble(s): cops.
We need to have banker/finance cops with big scary teeth. No-account crackheads or a degenerate drunk driver are going to cause havoc, but so will corrupt loan officers or real estate appraisers.
Creating a business environment that is not criminal absolutely requires active government intervention. Not to own it, but to prevent some connected scumbag from owning it.