PDA

View Full Version : 110 people own 35% of Russia's wealth



Cigar
10-10-2013, 07:02 AM
A staggering 35 percent of household wealth in Russia is owned by just 110 people, the highest level of inequality in the world barring a few small Caribbean islands, a report by a major investment bank says.

By contrast, billionaires worldwide account for just 1-2 percent of total wealth, Credit Suisse said in its report published Wednesday. Russia has one billionaire for every $11 billion in wealth while in the rest of the world there is one for every $170 billion.


The fall of Communism saw Russia's most prized assets sold off to a small circle of businessmen later known as oligarchs. President Vladimir Putin allowed them to keep their wealth in exchange for their political loyalty.


Metals and banking tycoons Vladimir Potanin and Mikhail Fridman, who made their fortunes in the 90s, are still high on the list of Russia's richest men. But the past decade saw a rise of new billionaires who draw their wealth from state contracts and some of whom are known to be the presidents' friends, like Gennady Timchenko.
Credit Suisse said that there were hopes with the demise of the Soviet Union that Russia would turn into a high skilled economy with fair wealth distribution but "this is almost a parody of what happened in practice."


The 35 percent of wealth that Russian billionaires own is equivalent to $420 billion.


"Russia has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world, apart from small Caribbean nations with resident billionaires," the bank said in the report.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-110-people-own-35-133554175.html


This is exactly what you get from people hell bent on destroying whatever social safety net and wealth distribution powers our government has.

jillian
10-10-2013, 07:03 AM
i'm shocked... shocked i tell ya

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 07:19 AM
Raise your hands if you've lived there or have family who lives there? ((raises hand))

Russia has a growing middle class whereas the US has a shrinking middle class. @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/a-rising-middle-class-will-fuel-growth-in-russia.html


Stable gross domestic product growth, declining inflation and a record-low unemployment rate are pointing to positive consumer purchasing power in Russia. The Russian middle class, which stands at 104 million strong, is fueling that power. This segment of the population is projected to rise 16 percent between now and 2020, at which point it will represent 86 percent of the population and amount to $1.3 trillion in spending—up 40 percent from 2010, based on a global study of the emerging middle class and related databases by Dr. Homi Kharas of the Brookings Institution.


“There is an equal share of money at the top and in the middle,” said Dr. Venkatesh Bala, chief economist, The Cambridge Group, a part of Nielsen. “Russia’s middle class today has the same share of income as the upper class and has remained an untapped opportunity by many international corporations.”


While the top 20 percent of income earners in Russia represent 47 percent of the country’s total income, the middle 60 percent accounts for 48 percent, according to federal statistics from the Bank of Russia (2012). The bottom 20 percent comprise the remaining five percent of income.





What are the US statistics for the middle class?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/middle-class-jobs-income-_n_3386157.html


While the Obama administration has trumpeted job growth (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/obama-jobs-tour_n_3244344.html) in recent months, the middle class is taking home a shrinking portion of the country's income (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/middle-class-lost-decade_n_1822661.html). Deep job losses in occupations such as construction, information technology, manufacturing and insurance are not likely to recover (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/middle-class-jobs-machines_n_2532639.html). Middle-class families also saw nearly 30 percent of their wealth disappear (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/middle-class-lost-decade_n_1822661.html)over the past decade, while the cost of goods and services they rely upon steadily climbed.


The swift contraction of the middle class has left most Americans fearful (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/opinion/blow-the-morose-middle-class.html?_r=0) they may be unable to maintain their standard of living.




Maybe it's because our middle class pay upwards of 33% to the federal government and middle class Russians pay 13%. Maybe.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 07:21 AM
You guys are so eager to punish the rich to reward "the poor" that you don't even give two shits about the people who struggled to get from poor to middle class only to see their livelihood's get pissed away by legislation that can't touch the evil bad guys at the top.

You will look back on this in 20 years and try to figure out some way to not blame yourself for destroying middle America.

jillian
10-10-2013, 07:22 AM
Maybe it's because our middle class pay upwards of 33% to the federal government and middle class Russians pay 13%. Maybe.

or maybe its because they didn't run two wars while cutting taxes for the first time in recorded history?

or maybe it's because their people have health care

or maybe it's because their numbers are fudged (because that could never happen under putin, i know)

or maybe it's because half the population of russia moved to my neighborhood and collects foodstamps while wearing fur coats. (half the population of russia in brooklyn doesn't collect foodstamps, but you get my drift).

correlation isn't causation, Alyosha, at least not without waaaaaay more information.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 07:25 AM
I've never been to the moon ... but I know enough to know it's gravity is 5/6 of earth gravity.

jillian
10-10-2013, 07:27 AM
You guys are so eager to punish the rich to reward "the poor" that you don't even give two shits about the people who struggled to get from poor to middle class only to see their livelihood's get pissed away by legislation that can't touch the evil bad guys at the top.

You will look back on this in 20 years and try to figure out some way to not blame yourself for destroying middle America.

why would i "punish" anyone. they paid a fair amount of taxes. baby bush came along and gave them a gift. and the right thinks we have all the money in the world for corporate welfare but not a dime to help the middle class and poor.

their premise is retarded...no one is "punishing" rich people. i like money. i enjoy money. i like the things it buys.

but destroying our middle and working classes to help a few families/corporations is unamerican and stupid and i don't choose to live in a banana republic.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 07:32 AM
why would i "punish" anyone. they paid a fair amount of taxes. baby bush came along and gave them a gift. and the right thinks we have all the money in the world for corporate welfare but not a dime to help the middle class and poor.

their premise is retarded...no one is "punishing" rich people. i like money. i enjoy money. i like the things it buys.

but destroying our middle and working classes to help a few families/corporations is unamerican and stupid and i don't choose to live in a banana republic.

They always forget about all the things that where not on the books during Baby Bush's spending spree ...

Tax Cuts - way less revenue
(2) Wars - way more spending

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 07:43 AM
or maybe its because they didn't run two wars while cutting taxes for the first time in recorded history?

I just said we have a 33% tax rate and they have 13%, thus putting more money into their pockets to spend on their economy. Their government now runs on an actual budget, whereas we spend like teenagers with a Mastercard.

Maybe we shouldn't keep growing the battlefield to north Africa and the NME? Maybe we shouldn't spend so much.




or maybe it's because their people have health care


Amazing that they can have both a public system and private system and only pay 13%. Do you want to know how they did this? I'll be more than happy to tell you because I think it is a good system.

:)



or maybe it's because their numbers are fudged (because that could never happen under putin, i know)


Logical fallacy alert. If you don't like the truth you can make stuff up. Putin can't fudge these numbers. AmazonTania...do I lie?



or maybe it's because half the population of russia moved to my neighborhood and collects foodstamps while wearing fur coats. (half the population of russia in brooklyn doesn't collect foodstamps, but you get my drift).


I lived there and the whys of this is the subject for another thread but you'll notice also the rise of "the brotherhood" in your area as well. Much like Castro did, Putin has a way of making life uncomfortable for certain types.



correlation isn't causation, @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863), at least not without waaaaaay more information.

Well, what did I correlate? I never said Russia's economy was due to the 13% flat tax. I said the middle class having money to spend and enjoying their lives has everything to do with keeping 87% of what they make.

You guys were so happy to point out that they have super rich people and neglected the fact that they also have a middle class that is ever-expanding whereas ours is shrinking.
jillian

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 07:44 AM
why would i "punish" anyone. they paid a fair amount of taxes. baby bush came along and gave them a gift. and the right thinks we have all the money in the world for corporate welfare but not a dime to help the middle class and poor.

their premise is retarded...no one is "punishing" rich people. i like money. i enjoy money. i like the things it buys.

but destroying our middle and working classes to help a few families/corporations is unamerican and stupid and i don't choose to live in a banana republic.

Please tell me how the across the board tax cuts destroyed our working class and middle class. Please. I really want to hear this.


:)

Germanicus
10-10-2013, 08:32 AM
I just googled. Where is the original story? The Fox or ABC? Which bank?

Is the report available?

Could US soft power be more pathetic? Wonder how Pussy Riot are doing? Poor girls. And those poor Greenpeace extremists. And what about the homosexuals? Will homosexual propaganda be an issue at the Russian Olympics? Why is Russia so mean and nasty? Why oh why? Can CNN World stop them? They sure are trying.

I thought the US had the worst record as far as wealth disparity. So USA came second?

It is a good idea to keep assets and wealth in the hands of those that can be trusted and those that are for the nation and not for themselves. The CPC does the same thing pretty much. These people invest back in their own economies.

In the US when things get bad all the money will leave because wealthy Americans are not nationalists. They are multinationalists. Globalists. They are enemies of the people really because with all the trouble in the US economy the wealthy Americans still are not willing to invest in their own nation. The USA is not a good place to invest. Low growth exhausted bankrupt economy. The wealthy are waiting for harsh austerity and lower wages to kick in before they invest in the USA. The place to invest is Asia. And Africa.

Westerners dont seem to understand that State Capitalism is only pretend capitalism. China only plays capitalist games to win them. To defeat the capitalists at their own sick games. They have.

The CPC are socialists.. (:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx_kxp3R2oU

Shabangabang.

Ha! Americans are a joke. American propaganda is so crap. It must be because so many Americans are stupid. Bill OReilly is an important guy in the USA. Think about that for a second. And you think Jon Stewart is smart? Back to Stewarts partner OReilly, do you think that ruse, insane and ridiculous US 'icon' as he calls himself could be used for propaganda in Europe in that form? I know he isnt as stupid as he acts but he is still clearly insane. And how does a guy like that keep his sanity? Can you imagine his opinion of the public when you consider what he does? And imagine what US society allows him to think of himself. He reminds me of the guy from the commercials in that Robocop movie that says "Id buy that for a dollar!" And in the USA Bill OReilly sells books like hotcakes to redneck christian types ( only you have those ) , baby boomers and some very very stupid folks.

I am not sure if the Australian public or the US public is more stupid. I suspect Americans are more stupid and Australians more passive. Americans and Australians are the stupidist people in the world. Makes sense they are the most 'first world racist' nations. Racist/predjudice and ignorant in relation to emerging and developing economies.

Moral high ground is with the BRICS and NAM nations. Not the disgusting spoiled brats of the west.

4245

You are at war smart guys. You are losing. Maybe you will do better when we reach total war. You can handle that right? You are so great. BRICS dont scare you invincibles right? You can win a war against China, Russia, India, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Venezuela........

The USA is at war. China is not your friend. They hate neo-colonialists in China. They seek to end the humiliation of China.

Living in Australia I can understand. The USA - Australia relationship is a humiliation. Only Australian society is utterly pathetic. We are not taught in school the best nutrients like they are in China.

We will see how great the USA really is. Soon.

patrickt
10-10-2013, 08:35 AM
And when liberals are successful in reducing the overwhelming majority of the people to poverty and government dependence it's a lot easier for a few to amass wealth.

jillian
10-10-2013, 08:37 AM
And when liberals are successful in reducing the overwhelming majority of the people to poverty and government dependence it's a lot easier for a few to amass wealth.

and yet we're more prosperous when dems run the country

and crash into recession when righties run it.

oops.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:38 AM
Germanicus

I'm a dual citizen. "Pussy Riot" literally pulled their pants down and crapped on the floor of the church after entering an ongoing service to play a rock song. In the US they would go to jail for that, as well.

Also, many people in Russia believe they were CIA agitators mostly because the name is not something that translates well in Russian, but it does in the US. kilgram and I have had this talk before. It's just weird that you would choose a name for your band that is not part of the colloquial in your native country, but is in America.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:41 AM
and yet we're more prosperous when dems run the country

and crash into recession when righties run it.

oops.


You've yet to explain how Bush's tax cuts did that.


I'm still waiting.


I can explain why at the end of Clinton's term we were in a down slope and why the same was true for Bush. Dot com bubble, Feds raised interest rates and it burst while people were still extended with venture monies. Housing bubble, Feds raised interest rates and burst while people were still invested in the housing market.

It is the manipulation of our economy by the Federal Reserve.

AmazonTania
10-10-2013, 04:40 PM
Logical fallacy alert. If you don't like the truth you can make stuff up. Putin can't fudge these numbers. @AmazonTania (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=852)...do I lie?


Not unless they're getting their data manipulating tricks from the US and China.

AmazonTania
10-10-2013, 04:45 PM
You've yet to explain how Bush's tax cuts did that.


I'm still waiting.


I can explain why at the end of Clinton's term we were in a down slope and why the same was true for Bush. Dot com bubble, Feds raised interest rates and it burst while people were still extended with venture monies. Housing bubble, Feds raised interest rates and burst while people were still invested in the housing market.

It is the manipulation of our economy by the Federal Reserve.

You probably won't get an answer to this, because there is no answer.

At the end of fiscal year 1959, GDP was $523.7 Billion dollars, IRS collected $36.7 Billion in personal income taxes, which means revenue as a precentage of GDP was 7.01%. Contrary to that year, in 2007 GDP was $14.08 Trillion dollars and the IRS collected $1.16 Trillion dollars or 8.26% of GDP.

So during those bad Bush years ideological stooges keep complaining about, they've collected much more tax revenue and the marginal rate was three times the size as it was during the 1950's.

jillian
10-10-2013, 04:58 PM
Please tell me how the across the board tax cuts destroyed our working class and middle class. Please. I really want to hear this.

:)

Easy Alyosha. Poor people don't pay taxes, so it didn't benefit them at all.

Middle//working class people had very small benefits, maybe a couple of hundred bucks a person.

Rich chi people benefitted disproportionately or bush wouldn't have bothered with the tax cuts.

Also, by running up our debt by cutting taxes during time of war for the first time in recorded history, we ended up with the costs of war being financed in large part by china. Interest payments, war costs, etc.

then the right took that debt and has used it it advance their agenda of starving government until they can drown it in the bathtub.

Now you may think that's a good thing. I don't.

And I'm certainly not interested in hearing we can't afford head start, infrastructure, food stamps and health care because of the debt that was intentionally run up

and yes, now you'll say-- but Obama increased our debt. Well yes, and he had to finish what we started. (Which is why I laughed when the neocons demanded we "do something" in Syria. I didn't think starting another war we can't afford was a good idea.

And id id still rather invest in infrastructure because that puts people to work and grows the economy where austerity is an economy killer.

Chris
10-10-2013, 05:03 PM
Easy Alyosha. Poor people don't pay taxes, so it didn't benefit them at all.

Middle//working class people had very small benefits, maybe a couple of hundred bucks a person.

Rich chi people benefitted disproportionately or bush wouldn't have bothered with the tax cuts.

Also, by running up our debt by cutting taxes during time of war for the first time in recorded history, we ended up with the costs of war being financed in large part by china. Interest payments, war costs, etc.

then the right took that debt and has used it it advance their agenda of starving government until they can drown it in the bathtub.

Now you may think that's a good thing. I don't.

And I'm certainly not interested in hearing we can't afford head start, infrastructure, food stamps and health care because of the debt that was intentionally run up

and yes, now you'll say-- but Obama increased our debt. Well yes, and he had to finish what we started. (Which is why I laughed when the neocons demanded we "do something" in Syria. I didn't think starting another war we can't afford was a good idea.

And id id still rather invest in infrastructure because that puts people to work and grows the economy where austerity is an economy killer.




And id id still rather invest in infrastructure because that puts people to work and grows the economy where austerity is an economy killer.

And do you have any evidence of the Keynesian nonsense, jillian?

We'll wait for that too.....

AmazonTania
10-10-2013, 05:05 PM
Hm, that explanation was... very bad...

AmazonTania
10-10-2013, 05:08 PM
and yet we're more prosperous when dems run the country


When?

Codename Section
10-10-2013, 05:10 PM
Easy @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863). Poor people don't pay taxes, so it didn't benefit them at all.

Middle//working class people had very small benefits, maybe a couple of hundred bucks a person.

Rich chi people benefitted disproportionately or bush wouldn't have bothered with the tax cuts.

That's not what she was saying jillian

She asked how the tax cuts hurt the economy when the economy did better with the tax cuts. We all know middle class and poor people weren't going to get huge grabs. This is the government after all. Just how did it do worse with them? :)

jillian
10-10-2013, 05:14 PM
That's not what she was saying @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

She asked how the tax cuts hurt the economy when the economy did better with the tax cuts. We all know middle class and poor people weren't going to get huge grabs. This is the government after all. Just how did it do worse with them? :)
Codename Section It seems to me she was asking about impact on people. But do you think it was good for us to run two wars on China's dime?

It was just one part of what screwed up our economy. The derivatives scam and a bunch of other factors contributed. And it would be simplistic for me to say it was only one factor that caused the crash

kilgram
10-10-2013, 05:16 PM
And do you have any evidence of the Keynesian nonsense, jillian?

We'll wait for that too.....
Do you have any evidence for the Liberal nonsense?

*Liberal in European meaning, it is Free market theories.

jillian
10-10-2013, 05:19 PM
When?
Since the 80's when the right started pushing voodoo economics.

Or you could go back to Hoover.

Eisenhower was ok though.

Thanks for asking.

nic34
10-10-2013, 05:19 PM
From Brookings:
The Bush Tax Cuts: Didn’t they help the economy recover from the 2001 recession?

Casual commentary on economic policy is often based on the post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, it is argued that because an economic recovery followed the tax cuts, the tax cuts must have caused the recovery. In truth the economy recovered from the 2001 recession for a variety of reasons unrelated to the tax cuts, which were poorly designed to deliver a short-term economic stimulus.



Several factors contributed to the turnaround in economic growth following the 2001 recession. The Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to historic lows, spurring huge amounts of mortgage refinancing; this reduced homeowners’ monthly payments, which in turn increased consumer demand for other products. A period of economic and political uncertainty followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but by 2003, when the major military campaign in Iraq had begun, at least some of that uncertainty had dissipated. Government spending also increased in these years, including for defense and homeland security. Meanwhile the technology cycle continued to turn: investment went from boom in the late 1990s to a drought in 2001 and 2002, but by 2003 firms were once again willing to invest. Compared with these factors, the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 had a small effect in stimulating the economy out of the recession of 2001 and the slow growth of 2002 and 2003.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/recovery.cfm

This isn't as simple as you think. More questions to ask:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/

Codename Section
10-10-2013, 05:20 PM
@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) It seems to me she was asking about impact on people. But do you think it was good for us to run two wars on China's dime?

It was just one part of what screwed up our economy. The derivatives scam and a bunch of other factors contributed. And it would be simplistic for me to say it was only one factor that caused the crash

We shouldn't have gone for better reasons than money. It was immoral, IMO.

Codename Section
10-10-2013, 05:21 PM
From Brookings:
The Bush Tax Cuts: Didn’t they help the economy recover from the 2001 recession?

Casual commentary on economic policy is often based on the post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, it is argued that because an economic recovery followed the tax cuts, the tax cuts must have caused the recovery. In truth the economy recovered from the 2001 recession for a variety of reasons unrelated to the tax cuts, which were poorly designed to deliver a short-term economic stimulus.



Several factors contributed to the turnaround in economic growth following the 2001 recession. The Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to historic lows, spurring huge amounts of mortgage refinancing; this reduced homeowners’ monthly payments, which in turn increased consumer demand for other products. A period of economic and political uncertainty followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but by 2003, when the major military campaign in Iraq had begun, at least some of that uncertainty had dissipated. Government spending also increased in these years, including for defense and homeland security. Meanwhile the technology cycle continued to turn: investment went from boom in the late 1990s to a drought in 2001 and 2002, but by 2003 firms were once again willing to invest. Compared with these factors, the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 had a small effect in stimulating the economy out of the recession of 2001 and the slow growth of 2002 and 2003.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/recovery.cfm

This isn't as simple as you think. More questions to ask:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/


No, the lowered interest rates caused people to buy houses and that boosted the economy for awhile as people also got home equity loans.

AmazonTania
10-10-2013, 05:21 PM
@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) It seems to me she was asking about impact on people. But do you think it was good for us to run two wars on China's dime?

The question was how did a across the board tax cut destroy the working class and the middle class. Somewhere in your very bad explanation, this portion is missing...


It was just one part of what screwed up our economy. The derivatives scam and a bunch of other factors contributed. And it would be simplistic for me to say it was only one factor that caused the crash

Simple questions: What are derivatives? How do they work? And how were derivatives a 'contributing factor?'

I only ask because very few people actually understand how derivatives work, and somehow everyone thinks they know they were a 'contributing factor' in the financial crisis.

zelmo1234
10-10-2013, 05:21 PM
or maybe its because they didn't run two wars while cutting taxes for the first time in recorded history?

or maybe it's because their people have health care

or maybe it's because their numbers are fudged (because that could never happen under putin, i know)

or maybe it's because half the population of russia moved to my neighborhood and collects foodstamps while wearing fur coats. (half the population of russia in brooklyn doesn't collect foodstamps, but you get my drift).

correlation isn't causation, @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863), at least not without waaaaaay more information.

First if Cigar's post is true. 110 people have 35% of the wealth, that is what happens under wealth distribution. It makes it harder to rise to the top, but people are more equal, it is just everyone has less than they did!

Next it actually has been over a month since we went through this, apparently you have forgotten that your stance is based on liberal bull shit! but the tax cuts actually had a dramatic increase in revenue?

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2002_2015&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

As you can see after the tax cuts took hold in 03 revenue dramatically increases.

Also wages were higher during the Bush years

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/29/chart-median-household-incomes-have-collapsed-during-the-recession/

YEP! taxing and regulating those businesses is working well, but the folks are loosing!

And of course there is the unemployment?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Note the drop starting in 03, which happens to be the first year of business benefiting from the new tax cuts

And last Obama has ran up nearly 7 trillion in debt? Which liberals like to blame on the wars.

http://nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/

So even if the first 8 years of the wars were all somehow shifted to the Obama administration?

That is 1.5 trillion? where did the other 5.5 trillion go?

So you see the socialism that the Obama Administration is in love with? Well it is hurting people not helping people.

And Please lets not go through the Lie that Bush caused the Economy to collapse again?

AmazonTania
10-10-2013, 05:24 PM
Since the 80's when the right started pushing voodoo economics.

Or you could go back to Hoover.

Eisenhower was ok though.

Thanks for asking.

I don't know what is wrong with your reading comprehension, but it appears you are very bad at answer questions in the proper context.

You've said that the economy has been more prosperous when Democrats were in charge. I've asked, 'When?" I don't know how blabbing off about Republican Presidents answers the question.

Try again, with more coherency this time.

zelmo1234
10-10-2013, 05:24 PM
why would i "punish" anyone. they paid a fair amount of taxes. baby bush came along and gave them a gift. and the right thinks we have all the money in the world for corporate welfare but not a dime to help the middle class and poor.

their premise is retarded...no one is "punishing" rich people. i like money. i enjoy money. i like the things it buys.

but destroying our middle and working classes to help a few families/corporations is unamerican and stupid and i don't choose to live in a banana republic.

Another horse shit post?

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share-in-taxes/claim-that-rich-dont-pay-enough-based-on-perception-not-fact

Lower rates = more investment in the US economy and more dollars paid into the federal government

That is why the revenue went up so much!

zelmo1234
10-10-2013, 05:25 PM
They always forget about all the things that where not on the books during Baby Bush's spending spree ...

Tax Cuts - way less revenue
(2) Wars - way more spending

Please see above post to verify that Cigars post is a complete and total LIE!

But then again he is a liberal and liberals ???? LIE

Chris
10-10-2013, 05:27 PM
Do you have any evidence for the Liberal nonsense?

*Liberal in European meaning, it is Free market theories.


Yes, where would you like to start?

zelmo1234
10-10-2013, 05:28 PM
Please tell me how the across the board tax cuts destroyed our working class and middle class. Please. I really want to hear this.


:)


You will find that this is something that Jillian like to bring up ever two weeks or so,

I just keep posting the facts. I think that they think I will tire of posting the revenue, income, and unemployment figures and they will be able to claim that they are telling the truth!

Chris
10-10-2013, 05:29 PM
Since the 80's when the right started pushing voodoo economics.

Or you could go back to Hoover.

Eisenhower was ok though.

Thanks for asking.

Voodoo economics was Keynesian, what you earlier claimed worked.

zelmo1234
10-10-2013, 05:30 PM
and yet we're more prosperous when dems run the country

and crash into recession when righties run it.

oops.

Tell the middle class and the poor that, under your Chosen one they lost over 5K in annual income and if you figure the unemployment rate the way that the Bush administration did it is hovering at just under 105 still

NOW THAT IS PROGRESS.

Chris
10-10-2013, 05:31 PM
I don't know what is wrong with your reading comprehension, but it appears you are very bad at answer questions in the proper context.

You've said that the economy has been more prosperous when Democrats were in charge. I've asked, 'When?" I don't know how blabbing off about Republican Presidents answers the question.

Try again, with more coherency this time.


It's those partisan blinders. Keynesian economics, for example, is good if Dems do it but not if Reps do it.

zelmo1234
10-10-2013, 05:36 PM
Since the 80's when the right started pushing voodoo economics.

Or you could go back to Hoover.

Eisenhower was ok though.

Thanks for asking.


Reagan starts the longest period of peacetime economic growth in US history?

You forgot Kennedy he cut taxes to stimulate the economy to? It worked under Eisenhower, and Bush and Kennedy and Reagan?

Now look at how the policies of socialism extended the depression and are making this recession drag on and on and on!

Nice lie though!

IF we were living in the age of a liberal has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be done, you would be doing real well, as it is your argument is based on your total and complete fabrication of the facts.

zelmo1234
10-10-2013, 05:38 PM
From Brookings:
The Bush Tax Cuts: Didn’t they help the economy recover from the 2001 recession?

Casual commentary on economic policy is often based on the post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, it is argued that because an economic recovery followed the tax cuts, the tax cuts must have caused the recovery. In truth the economy recovered from the 2001 recession for a variety of reasons unrelated to the tax cuts, which were poorly designed to deliver a short-term economic stimulus.



Several factors contributed to the turnaround in economic growth following the 2001 recession. The Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to historic lows, spurring huge amounts of mortgage refinancing; this reduced homeowners’ monthly payments, which in turn increased consumer demand for other products. A period of economic and political uncertainty followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but by 2003, when the major military campaign in Iraq had begun, at least some of that uncertainty had dissipated. Government spending also increased in these years, including for defense and homeland security. Meanwhile the technology cycle continued to turn: investment went from boom in the late 1990s to a drought in 2001 and 2002, but by 2003 firms were once again willing to invest. Compared with these factors, the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 had a small effect in stimulating the economy out of the recession of 2001 and the slow growth of 2002 and 2003.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/recovery.cfm

This isn't as simple as you think. More questions to ask:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/

Please see the figures from the federal government that show that the GDP was rising, tax revenue was increasing and unemployment dropped dramatically after the Bush tax cuts took effect

in other words they can spin it and spin it but the facts are revenue went up and unemployment went down, and wages were rising!

Peter1469
10-10-2013, 06:30 PM
From Brookings:
The Bush Tax Cuts: Didn’t they help the economy recover from the 2001 recession?

Casual commentary on economic policy is often based on the post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, it is argued that because an economic recovery followed the tax cuts, the tax cuts must have caused the recovery. In truth the economy recovered from the 2001 recession for a variety of reasons unrelated to the tax cuts, which were poorly designed to deliver a short-term economic stimulus.



Several factors contributed to the turnaround in economic growth following the 2001 recession. The Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to historic lows, spurring huge amounts of mortgage refinancing; this reduced homeowners’ monthly payments, which in turn increased consumer demand for other products. A period of economic and political uncertainty followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but by 2003, when the major military campaign in Iraq had begun, at least some of that uncertainty had dissipated. Government spending also increased in these years, including for defense and homeland security. Meanwhile the technology cycle continued to turn: investment went from boom in the late 1990s to a drought in 2001 and 2002, but by 2003 firms were once again willing to invest. Compared with these factors, the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 had a small effect in stimulating the economy out of the recession of 2001 and the slow growth of 2002 and 2003.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/recovery.cfm

This isn't as simple as you think. More questions to ask:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/