Only difference is that there is far more wealth that is distributed now than under any other administration in history.

Distribution of wealth in a FREE society is the result of work and productivity.

Lastly, the very word "distribution" proves how utterly perverse and idiotic liberal notions of the economy are. Wealth is not "distributed" it is CREATED. Nobody "distributed" money to Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, they earned and created it.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

If anyone is to blame for the state of America it is the complacent middle classed Americans. Always pushing down the little guy. The middle class is disappearing ? Oh no, well maybe they should have thought of that before they unleashed a decade long assault on working class Americans.

.

Working class Americans are middle class.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

All you anti-supply-siders need to actually read what the article said instead of what you expected it to say.

The articel quite properly states that Taxable Income will fall if tax rates are raised. Not so much as to create a net reduction in government receipts, but certainly enough to prevent Obama from achieving his projections.

Any given tax dodge, whether it's municpal bonds, contibuting to one's 401-k, hiring one's worthless nephew, or just plain not working, has costs. Just as alternative energy becomes more attractive as gas prices go up, previously non-cost-effective tax dodges look more attractive as tax rates go up. Thus the summary comment that the net effect would be that the government would indeed gain revenue, but every dollar gained would be at the expense of roughly $5 of private sector productivity, which hardly sounds like a good deal for anybody not in the governmental extortion business.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

dude..please huh....obamas got that class warfare angle cornered already, find another Tack...

I did.

No, that's an improper claim. And also, it's a misstatement not only of fact but also of supply-side theory. Supply-side theory doesn't say that people will reduce their taxable income to avoid higher taxes, but that the removal of investment capital from the market will result in lower economic activity, hence a smaller tax base, hence lower taxes overall. This is also fallacious, but for a different reason: the bottleneck in the investment in job-creating ventures is not the amount of investment capital available, but the incentive to invest it in job-creating ventures, which in turn is a function of consumer demand, which in turn is a function of median real net wages. So in fact, what hurts the economy and lowers revenue is not a tax increase on the rich but a tax increase on those making from about $20,000 to $100,000 a year, which represent the great majority of consumers. (Hence the economic disaster caused by Roosevelt's introduction of the Social Security payroll tax in 1937. To get back on topic.)

Regarding Social Security, we must ask ourselves, first, whether we want a government-run old-age retirement support program at all. Yes? No? Assume yes, for the sake of argument.

We then must face the fact that Social Security as FDR constructed it is not viable. Life expectancy has increased, and it is no longer the case that most workers never live to collect benefits, and population growth has slowed and must soon cease altogether and even reverse temporarily. So, Social Security as FDR designed it will not continue to work much longer. As I see it, we may replace it with one of two things:

1) A welfare program, in effect, in which all retired persons are guaranteed a minimum income and this is paid for out of general progressive taxes. OR:

2) A contribution program similar in general concept to Social Security, but in which the funds in the program cannot be borrowed by the federal government to cover general expenses and must instead be invested profitably, so that it becomes something like a national 401(k) plan. But if we go that route, then we will also need to implement emergency welfare provisions to cover retirees who did not contribute to the new system during their working years, or contributed to it only partially.

Obama does seem to be moving towards #1. IMO if he's going to do that, he should not do it halfway, but should simply abolish the payroll tax altogether, increase income taxes to compensate, and make no bones about it.

Either way the point is made and as far as no. 1?

FUCK THAT. He may fanaticize about communing ala some European financially enslaved pension hell, not me.
I am only contributing to this mess called SSI because I have to. I am not going to give another dime if I can help it, so you or anyone else can retire, sorry, you’re on your own, if you don’t make enough to max your benefits thats not my problem.

Its a shell game.

I agree with the concept of no. #2, Bush tried to surface ala prvt. accounts which I think is even better, BUT Obama is a liberal, he will NEVER EVER vote to give you or me any control over our own or any funds if he/they can possibly help it, that’s Liberal governing rule no.1.

Well, I wouldn't want to see that happen, either. The way the economy is structured, so dependent on consumption but so unwilling to pay the high wages necessary to it, everyone is kept on the edge of disaster and encouraged not only to save and invest but in fact to borrow to the limit on credit, and beyond. The reality would be that an awful lot of people would fail to provide for themselves, and we would then be faced with large numbers of old people, unable to support themselves, living in abject poverty and supported by public charity. Ugly. Understand that what I meant by #2 was not an attempt to privatize Social Security or make it voluntary, which is actually a code word for dismantling it. If we are going to do that, we should simply dismantle it honestly.

But to treat the whole thing as an investment program or national 401(k) plan would not be bad. Again, though, we'd need some welfare-like taxing and spending in the interim as the new program is phased in.

What class warfare? those were just facts.

And all you would be Social Security privatizers should really take a course in economics.

Social Security funds are invested in US Treasury Bonds, a riskless investment that pays the pure interest rate.
Any investment that pays more involves risk, the cost of that risk will in the long run equal the additional return, due to a thing called arbitrage.
Go ahead, look it up.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Someone needs a dictionary...........

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

To me - what it comes down to is what kind of country do you want.
Do you want a country that re-distributes wealth? (a.k.a. - government becomes the largest charity organization that forces you to donate)
Do you want a country where the majority of people do not pay taxes? (it is heading that way fast)
Do you want a country where businesses run because it is infinitely cheaper to be elsewhere?
Do you want a country where the government gets exponentially bigger than it is now?
Do you want a country where illegal immigrants get free health care? (somebody has to pay for this)
Do you want a country where you could pay over 50% in taxes?
Do you want to pay an average of $5 per gallon for gas indefinitely?
Do you want to actually INCREASE our dependency on foreign energy?
This is the country that Obama want to offer you.

goober for a guy that claims that fed tax revenue is/was flat please don't tell me to look stuff up, that’s nervy along with all the other diatribe you trot out here periodically, ala mccains giving intel to the nor Vietnamese etc....

if a 2% rate of return or less, is okay with you cool, then take whatever eskle you have by way iof funds and out it in the same vehicle.....if you need a primer on what happens to ss money go wiki it., it appears you do.

And as far as class warfare thats the crux of juts about every position you hold, you want us me them to pay higher rates of taxs because the gov. needs to spend more, no, no cutting everything from day one needs to remain funded (oh except the trailer dolts in the military)and in this instance go read the article again, you want me to fund someone else’s ssi to boot, screw you.

The tax burden on folks here in the top 10% is huge, not to mention if he raises the cap, employers, who pay into ss for their employee will take a hit too, remember(?). great for businesses yea, but it never seems to be enough when a lib thinks of something else to spend it on, you just think of more creative ways, like this to squeeze more out, I don't think Marcus needs a dictionary, I think you need a headgear check, it is what is proposed and it is what you avow in almost each and every case,...THOUGH in this case again especially it is averse to what your guiding light and hero saw as SS.

I think that’s doable, at least you have an open mind, but I would still prefer accounts where in some portion of that money is completely hands out of the gov. who spend it as fast as it come sin leaving behind ( listening goober?) worthless iou's.

Oh, I am well aware of the various definitions of the word. But in this context it clearly demonstrates an underlying belief that it is somehow directed (or at the very least not the result of a free and just market place), otherwise, why care how it is "distributed" in a free society?

But I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Please explain to me why the "distribution" of wealth matters to you? Why do you seem to think it is inherently bad or wrong if (while wealth at all levels is basically increasing) that some are getting wealthier faster than others?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Maybe a course in economics, and a little "Free Market Theory" would help too.
Concentrated wealth is considered an indication of a distorted market, an undistorted market is supposed to produce the widest distribution of wealth, and the least inequality of distribution. A grossly unequal result is an indication of a distorted market, with underlying inefficiencies that produce less net wealth for the society as a whole.

An efficient market will produce unequal results, but on the order of some people making twice as much as others, even ten times as much as others, but when some people are making a million times as much as others, that is an indication that there are distortions that are leading to inefficiencies in the market.
This was something that FDR saw, and he knew that a grossly unequal market system didn't lead to prosperity, it lead to communism.
By implementing market reforms and regulations that addressed the structural defects of the market, a relatively efficient market was put in place that delivered growth, increasing prosperity and an equitable distribution of wealth.
FDR saved capitalism from itself, and unlocked it's power to deliver wealth to the broadest numbers of people.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain