[All or Nothing]

I am really confused about this right now. It seems everyone is attacking the wealthy in the U.S. "Wall Street" as the source of all the problems here.

I just cannot understand where the problems in the U.S. is coming from. Everyone seems to have pinned it on the rich, but what about all the other problems? Problems like: the increasing debt, the government turning into a welfare state after WWII, the government running up the bill even further by endlessly being in war, the increasing dichotomy in Congress, the widespread purchases of unaffordable houses before the housing bubble burst, over regulation driving business away, etc. I thought most of the problems came from a multitude of points that was not "Wall Street".

Why is it that people have pinned everything on the wealthy? Where do the problems in the U.S. really come from?

[Gmac]

I think it's a much more complicated answer than that.

I don't blame the wealthy, I (in part) blame those in power (that includes the higher ups in banking, pharmaceuticals, etc. Movers, shakers, people with influence). The two aren't always mutually inclusive. Wealth is also a very broad term. The lower class might consider someone who makes $250k a year wealthy (they aren't), while the middle and upper class would consider it the minority earning over $1M/yr. Earning $1M a year isn't what it used to be.

Reality: The average person is a moron who doesn't understand how the world works (but thinks they do).

[Brian]

its a lot more complicated then just the wealthy. i place most of the blame on the whores running the country who are more concerned w/staying in power and buying votes then doing what is in the best interest of the country. the more free shit you promise (and deliver) the happier everyone is, at least until the bill comes due - ask the Greeks how thats working out right now.

[speakeasy]

Not all problems come from the wealthy, but this financial crisis of 08 that set off this recession was due in large part to greed of banks and mega corporations. People that created a housing bubble. I knew back in 2005 that the bubble was going to burst and be a catastrophe. I was saying this while everyone around me was boasting about how much their house/condo was gaining value. I have no background in economics, just common sense. So if I knew this, you can sure as hell bet that the people giving out these loans knew how this would all end. They were packaging up these shitty loans and selling them as mortgage backed securities underwritten by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Knowing that when the shit hits the fan, the taxpayer will on the hook. They make off like bandits, get bailed out, and now the country is even more trillions of debt. And with all this bailout money, they are holding on to it, not hiring, not investing in smaller businesses as it was hoped they would. CEO pay is still increasing. We have stagflation where everything around us is going up other than wages. Many jobs have left shore never to return. Shit is ugly right now. The poverty rate has been climbing up steadily but even then it doesn't tell the full picture because the amount of post-college people living at home with their parents masks the true number. If these people had to live on their own, they would be in poverty. It's just unprecedented that you have some many mid-20s to 30 somethings living with their parents. I know MANY people in their 30s still living at home, or with roommates because they can't afford their own apartment,yet alone any chance at home ownership.

So I think people are starting to wake up. They are seeing how concentrated wealth is in this country. I posted an article not long ago showing that the top 400 households in America have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population. CEO pay is hundreds of times the average worker pay, whereas in the 50s a CEO might have made ten times what an average worker does.

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatur..._20060621/

Concentration of wealth means concentration of power and influence and who gets a say so. It ties into lobbying and legislation. It makes a difference in who can run for office and who's interest they serve. Ours? Or the oil companies, bankers and pharmaceutical companies? Who gets bailed out? Them, or the graduate in $50k debt working at starbucks and living at home with no health insurance because he can't find any decent employment prospects? Man, it's a mess out here!

I'm convinced that a large part of our problems in this country derive from wealth being just too unevenly distributed. And just like in the 3rd world, the wealthy elite don't give a shit about the common person in their country. To them, a worker is a necessary evil. If you can eliminate their position and save even a dime, it's a rational financial decision. They have no interest in wage growth for the poor and middle class. They fight any increase in the minimum wage, they fight against unions or higher taxes on capital gains that would help pay down the debt.This is why some of us normal peons are pissed off.

[YoungGunner]

(10-02-2011 08:08 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

I am really confused about this right now. It seems everyone is attacking the wealthy in the U.S. "Wall Street" as the source of all the problems here.

I just cannot understand where the problems in the U.S. is coming from. Everyone seems to have pinned it on the rich, but what about all the other problems? Problems like: the increasing debt, the government turning into a welfare state after WWII, the government running up the bill even further by endlessly being in war, the increasing dichotomy in Congress, the widespread purchases of unaffordable houses before the housing bubble burst, over regulation driving business away, etc. I thought most of the problems came from a multitude of points that was not "Wall Street".

Why is it that people have pinned everything on the wealthy? Where do the problems in the U.S. really come from?

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/355527/

[vinman]

This is one of the many reasons.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...e-20100405

[All or Nothing]

(10-02-2011 08:17 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

I think it's a much more complicated answer than that.

I don't blame the wealthy, I (in part) blame those in power (that includes the higher ups in banking, pharmaceuticals, etc. Movers, shakers, people with influence). The two aren't always mutually inclusive. Wealth is also a very broad term. The lower class might consider someone who makes $250k a year wealthy (they aren't), while the middle and upper class would consider it the minority earning over $1M/yr. Earning $1M a year isn't what it used to be.

Reality: The average person is a moron who doesn't understand how the world works (but thinks they do).

Hmm, is it the "shakers and movers" that are the entire problem? Hasn't the U.S. placed regulations and taxes upon some of these people that would hurt them rather than help them?

(10-02-2011 08:50 PM)Brian Wrote:  

its a lot more complicated then just the wealthy. i place most of the blame on the whores running the country who are more concerned w/staying in power and buying votes then doing what is in the best interest of the country. the more free shit you promise (and deliver) the happier everyone is, at least until the bill comes due - ask the Greeks how thats working out right now.

I see this as a problem too. I think I heard this recently that Congressmen spend more time raising money and campaigning than actually doing their job. With their short terms, they tend to make short term decisions in order to stay in office over long term decisions that would benefit the general public.




Also, I think another part of the problem is that the U.S. peaked as a country ~40 years ago. It seems that this is the natural decline of the U.S. It seems like an inherent part of human nature almost. Rome faced this same problem. At one point it peaked and then afterwards it slowly declined into nothingness.

Maybe, this is just human nature. People have become complacent in the face of the general 'ease' of their life. A lack of hustle has deprived people of their desire to fight or die.

[El Rey]

I think people are blaming the 'elite', not just the wealthy. Elite is wealth+power+'old money'/'been in control for long time'.

[Gmac]

(10-02-2011 09:13 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 08:17 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

I think it's a much more complicated answer than that.

I don't blame the wealthy, I (in part) blame those in power (that includes the higher ups in banking, pharmaceuticals, etc. Movers, shakers, people with influence). The two aren't always mutually inclusive. Wealth is also a very broad term. The lower class might consider someone who makes $250k a year wealthy (they aren't), while the middle and upper class would consider it the minority earning over $1M/yr. Earning $1M a year isn't what it used to be.

Reality: The average person is a moron who doesn't understand how the world works (but thinks they do).

Hmm, is it the "shakers and movers" that are the entire problem? Hasn't the U.S. placed regulations and taxes upon some of these people that would hurt them rather than help them?

(10-02-2011 08:50 PM)Brian Wrote:  

its a lot more complicated then just the wealthy. i place most of the blame on the whores running the country who are more concerned w/staying in power and buying votes then doing what is in the best interest of the country. the more free shit you promise (and deliver) the happier everyone is, at least until the bill comes due - ask the Greeks how thats working out right now.

I see this as a problem too. I think I heard this recently that Congressmen spend more time raising money and campaigning than actually doing their job. With their short terms, they tend to make short term decisions in order to stay in office over long term decisions that would benefit the general public.




Also, I think another part of the problem is that the U.S. peaked as a country ~40 years ago. It seems that this is the natural decline of the U.S. It seems like an inherent part of human nature almost. Rome faced this same problem. At one point it peaked and then afterwards it slowly declined into nothingness.

Maybe, this is just human nature. People have become complacent in the face of the general 'ease' of their life. A lack of hustle has deprived people of their desire to fight or die.

I know some powerful people who were in or still are in the Federal Reserve. They're basically untouchable... it's unbelievable how they came to be and the amount of power they wield.

[Saladin]

(10-02-2011 09:07 PM)vinman Wrote:  

This is one of the many reasons.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...e-20100405

Matt Taibbi's book Griftopia is excellent and a must read. Its crazy how much power is concentrated in the hands of the American Elite.

There's a difference between being wealthy through hard work and talent, and being wealthy because you make the rules.

[All or Nothing]

(10-02-2011 09:29 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

I know some powerful people who were in or still are in the Federal Reserve. They're basically untouchable... it's unbelievable how they came to be and the amount of power they wield.

Reminds me of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU.

[Samseau]

To answer the topic:

The rich are to blame, but so is everyone else. The rich bought their way through America's democracy, and it's people are dupes who can't spot a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It blows that I'm stuck on this sinking ship.

Quote:

I think I heard this recently that Congressmen spend more time raising money and campaigning than actually doing their job. With their short terms, they tend to make short term decisions in order to stay in office over long term decisions that would benefit the general public.

The House of Representatives has always been this way. De Tocqueville talks about the rabble that comprised the House of Representative quite well.


The problem is that the 17th Amendment allows Senators to be elected like Representatives, ensuring that short-term decision making is always the norm.

[All or Nothing]

(10-03-2011 03:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The problem is that the 17th Amendment allows Senators to be elected like Representatives, ensuring that short-term decision making is always the norm.

Yeah, I am in a Political Science class right now and our class just went over that. The 17th amendment seems to be a terrible idea. It would make sense for one house to face the whip of the public, but both? Although, the problem immediately before the 17th amendment was that businesses would pay off the House to put in senators that would pass bills for their extremely wealthy companies to endlessly expand their dynasties.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I've recently read that 30% of those with incomes of 30 000$ or less a year oppose any kind of tax increases for the wealthy.
Frankly, with that kind of voting base, I think the USA deserves the oblivion it's careening towards.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Although, the problem immediately before the 17th amendment was that businesses would pay off the House to put in senators that would pass bills for their extremely wealthy companies to endlessly expand their dynasties.

Before, that would only happen on a statewide basis.
Now, the same thing happens except on a nationwide level of corruption.

Before, Senators needed only to appeal to a few thousand people in their state to run for senate. They could live on a shoestring budget and still have a fighting chance. See Lincoln vs. Douglas debates.
Now there's huge money involved in politics that dictate who can and cannot run for office.

[thegmanifesto]

(10-02-2011 09:17 PM)El Rey Wrote:  

I think people are blaming the 'elite', not just the wealthy. Elite is wealth+power+'old money'/'been in control for long time'.

Yeah, it's the Elites.

For instance, I don't think The Google Guys are to blame for this mess.

(10-03-2011 04:57 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I've recently read that 30% of those with incomes of 30 000$ or less a year oppose any kind of tax increases for the wealthy.
Frankly, with that kind of voting base, I think the USA deserves the oblivion it's careening towards.

That is amazing isn't it?

The Power of Brainwashing via Fox News.

[Gmac]

It's a hater's mindset, this taxing the wealthy thing.

First of all, the $250k - Sub $1M club isn't wealthy. Not in 2011. Higher taxes actually do more harm than good. Why?

Because the American government is the least efficient spender of money in the entire world. They're absolutely terrible. For every dollar that goes to the government you get about a 1% return.

It's also as if people think those with large incomes are just hoarding their money away. No, lower taxes means they are SPENDING more of their disposable incomes, which drives the economy by putting money back into businesses, creating jobs, boosting tourism, etc.

What is the government going to do with their money? Waste it all away on worthless secret projects, reforms that don't work, and 1000 page pork-barrel bills.

People also ignore the fact that private investments and mortgage upkeeps can leave the upper middle to lower upper class with even less disposable income, especially with higher taxes; making it almost as tough to make ends meet as the middle and lower class (not an excuse for them, but it's the reality).

I would rather the government impose some sort of "required small business spending percentage" for the wealthy than to use taxation to funnel it all in to them.

[Roosh]

The top 400 guys in the USA have more wealth than the bottom half (over 150 million people).

http://ow.ly/6KL3C

In the States, 1 member of the elite is more intelligent and skillful than 380,000 fellow Americans.

[speakeasy]

(10-03-2011 09:11 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

It's a hater's mindset, this taxing the wealthy thing.

First of all, the $250k - Sub $1M club isn't wealthy. Not in 2011. Higher taxes actually do more harm than good. Why?

This $250k thing being not much money keeps being brought up. Well keep in mind if your household makes $250k a year, you are in the top 4% of households. The reason they probably don't feel like they make much is because most Americans spend up to their income limit and max out their paycheck at whatever level they are making so they never "feel" rich. Look up Parkinson's law.

Also don't forget that we have a graduated tax structure. Just because the tax rate for $250k is X doesn't mean the whole $250k will be taxed at X. You will only pay that amount on the portion of your income that is $250k or above. So you will have one taxed at rate A for the part that's up to $50k, taxed at rate B for the $50-100k part, taxed at C for the part that's 100-150k.

Quote:

It's also as if people think those with large incomes are just hoarding their money away. No, lower taxes means they are SPENDING more of their disposable incomes, which drives the economy by putting money back into businesses, creating jobs, boosting tourism, etc.

If you're talking about mega wealthy people they most certainly are hoarding it away. If they were spending it all, then wealth wouldn't be so concentrated. It would be "trickling down". Which is not what is happening.

Quote:

What is the government going to do with their money? Waste it all away on worthless secret projects, reforms that don't work, and 1000 page pork-barrel bills.

Well, a balanced budget for one thing without having to cut into things like social security and fire teachers and let bridges and roads and levies crumble because there's no money.

[Giovonny]

I don't blame the "elite" neccesarily. I blame the people in power. The people who are in control.

And, I also blame the voters for electing these people and not having that balls to think for themselves.

We get the government we derserve. Bush got elected twice. We are idiots.

[MikeCF]

It's not a hater's mindset.

Before the bailouts, I didn't GAF about Wall Street. Once they started reaching into my pockets, I started caring.

BigPharma is stealing from me, too, as are defense contractors.

Yes, the elite are too blame.

[hydrogonian]

The political structure is responsible, 100%.

Unfortunately, the wealthy have molded that structure to their exact needs, and so I guess, through deduction, you could say that they are responsible. However, it is self perpetuating now. I think that wealth and power acts predictably, like a natural force, and all governments eventually devolve into what we have now because of that force. Whether you are a billionaire, or not, you have to agree that we have a completely corrupted, possibly irrecoverable, system.

What annoys me is all of the arm chair economists out there who don't have clue one about how economies work. Show me your PhD. What are you taking into account in your opinion? Because its incredibly complex topic that needs to take into account the entire global sphere of factors that effect your freedom, both economically and in every other way. I admit that I dont know enough, and cant possibly attain all of the necessary information to form an economically and politically informed opinion. Most people have no idea how politics works, or the socio-economics of business and labor as it pertains to the world stage, but want to share their public opinion about what works based on an Ayn Rand article that they once read. That type of manufactured consent does more to harm this country then anything. Consider for one moment that your political ideology might have been purposefully taught to you specifically to dis-empower you. The politics of most self professed "conservatives", ironically, actually drives us toward aristocratic totalitarianism, and hence restricted freedoms, faster than anything else. That is in part due to the fact that they are supposed to be the biggest force resisting this political devolution.

Conservatism isn't about "individualism" or even capitalism. And it certainly isn't about defending big business or the wealthy. These are all red herrings designed to dis-empower and confuse. If the goal is jobs and prosperity for society, then not ever in the history of this country has it been shown that cutting taxes for the wealthy will lead to greater prosperity for all, no matter what that measurement is. In fact, the unemployment rate has only risen in the past decade despite drastically falling tax rates for the wealthy and corporations. Having that conversation with someone isn't even worth anyone's time here, because anyone defending the wealthy, and isn't one of them, has been politically neutered at best, and is distracting from any meaningful conversation at the worst.

The wealthy become so on the back of society, society does not exist because of the wealthy.

[Gmac]

I didn't say the elite weren't to blame, but simply "taxing the wealthy" isn't going to solve anything. Period.

Speakeasy: Roadwork and similar projects are generally left up to the state governments, so raising fed taxes wouldn't change anything. I'm not touching the beast that is social security, honestly I don't have the solution to that problem. Also, I never said anything about the most wealthy people spending their entire fortunes (that would be stupid).

And yes, I took Finance courses in college in addition to my own research... I know how tax brackets work.

Quote:

This $250k thing being not much money keeps being brought up. Well keep in mind if your household makes $250k a year, you are in the top 4% of households. The reason they probably don't feel like they make much is because most Americans spend up to their income limit and max out their paycheck at whatever level they are making so they never "feel" rich. Look up Parkinson's law.

My dad makes close to $400k a year with bonus. After taxes, he's got about half of that left (I don't know the specifics, just what he tells me). After his mortgages (extremely high in DC), other investments & loan payments (i.e. cars/boat), basic needs, and money put into savings, he's got maybe $20-$30k in disposable income that he WILL spend if it is there. If taxes go up, that money is gone. At 1-2% of the population it might not seem like much, but that 6 million people are losing the ability to spend a combined $150 Billion dollars that would otherwise have gone right back into the economy (in my dad's case, to fund his lifestyle).

Before someone takes a stab at me, I grew up lower middle class.

[MikeCF]

^^^ Problem is guys like you think 400K year = rich.

Guys like your dad aren't the problem.

It's the guys making $10 million plus who are the problem.

[speakeasy]

GMAC, not to be critical of your dad and his financial decisions, but I feel like if I made $400k + bonuses a year, I'd have a hell of a lot of disposable income. That income puts him in the top 1% of incomes. It's hard for me to feel empathy with people in that income bracket when they feel squeezed and feel like that's not a lot of money. I mean fuck, I know dudes that get around on a bus pass and are squeezed if they have to pay $10 for a cover at a club.

I wasn't trying to be condescending when going into the graduated tax thing. I was saying that more for the general audience than you specifically. I'm often surprised at how many people don't know how that works.