At the Saddleback Church forum on Saturday, it was interesting to hear the candidates’ differing responses to pastor Rick Warren’s question about how they would define “rich.” He asked for a number.
John McCain said $5 million.
Barack Obama said $250,000.
McCain seemed to realize that his figure could look high.
“I’m sure that comment will be distorted,” he said. “The point is we want to keep people’s taxes low.”
It’s a revealing look at how the two parties view wealth. For Republicans, apparently, mere millionaires don’t qualify. Don’t be surprised if Democrats use McCain’s remark this fall against charges that Obama is an “elitist.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
122 Comments
How would I define rich? Assuming we’re referring to economic wealth, same way as everyone else; anyone who is substantially richer than I am.
Did the question refer to income or net worth?
That is not at all clear.
A $5,000,000.00 income would produce, at a sustainable, actuarily sound 5% rate of return?
EXACTLY $250,000.00
Also, ZerObama Zombies, Obama bombed at this forum, by all accounts.
Obama says that if you are under $150,000 you might be “poor” I just heard him say so.
How do you go from “poor” at $149,000, to “rich” at “$250,000.00″ ???
boy that was mangled
A $5,000,000.00 capital sum, at 5% would produce:
$250,000.00!
If my family and I are healthy, are together, and living good productive lives – then I am rich.
Damn good post AmWay.
You can not improve the plight of the poor by tearing down the rich.
The Eagle is pushing class envy, once again!
Valid point Paul – are we talking income or assets?
However, Paul, I don’t think he is indicating that 1 dollar below ‘rich’ is ‘poor’
“ZerObama Zombies”? Is that the Rushism of the day? And YOU have the Chutzpa to complain about name-calling!
You can not improve the plight of the poor by tearing down the rich.
How many jobs have you gotten from a poor person?
With Obama reporting 4.2 million in income, he is WAAAAYYYY EEEEEEEVILE RICH !!!!!
“Barack Obama said $250,000.”
Hey Randy! Obama said $150,000 just the other day.
Which Obama quote are you going to use? Is the most recent one – his current policy, was it a mis-statement, or does the press revert to whatever is convenient, instead of true?
Hey Randy!
How much do the owners of Scholfield Honda/Chrysler/GM make a year? :D
Are they rich?
:D
With Obama reporting 4.2 million in income, he is WAAAAYYYY EEEEEEEVILE RICH !!!!!
LOL! You’re such a dork, Sol.
I suppose one could create separate categories: affluent, wealthy, and so on. At 4.2 million a year, Obama is definitely wealthy, but the people running the show tend to be centimillionaires and billionaires.
In a capitalist country, wealth is power. Acknowledging that simple fact seems to make some people make go bonkers.
But getting back to the subject: Obama pointed out that those who make 250,0000 a year make more than 96 percent of the people in the country (the question was indeed about income). He also qualified his answer, noting that “rich” is subject to interpretation, depending on the individual situation: normal expenses, where you live, etc.
In other words, he gave a thoughtful, reasonable answer.
“If you’re just talking about income, how about five million?”
So, McCain was talking $5 million INCOME – not assets.
Gee, so who’s elitist now?
How would I define rich? I suppose having enough money to continue to eat after paying Obama’s planned tax increases. THAT would be rich…!
$250,000 is rich? Living well, doing great, but rich? Hogwash.
I say one million a year in income.
“qualified his answer, noting that “rich” is subject to interpretation, depending on the individual situation”
In other words: Double-talk.
Cover your a-s so no one know’s WHAT the heck you mean.
“McCain seemed to realize that his figure could look high.”
How would one know that? Did he have a cartoon thought bubble over his head?
n other words: Double-talk.
Cover your a-s so no one know’s WHAT the heck you mean.
No, actually it was code-language, designed for people like me to clearly understand as English, but to go far over the head of someone like you.
““qualified his answer, noting that “rich” is subject to interpretation, depending on the individual situation”
It depends upon the meaning of the word sex.
How would one know that? Did he have a cartoon thought bubble over his head?
He immediately laughed, and then said “But seriously. . .”
I think a link to the video would be helpful.
To me one is at the “rich” stage when money is no longer a concern. Which this is defined by the individual.
“it was code-language”
I’ll bet it was. He gives a wink to Liberals, (Bubble over his head: “Yeah we are gonna get those rich b-stards)
When he KNOWS he has to dip into the middle class to fund the bounty of new entitlement programs on his agenda.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Remove your hand from your heart during the Pledge of Alligence – and put it over your back pocket.
Obama is coming after all you have!!!
“Hell, I couldn’t tell you what I paid for that boat!”-Rich.
Walking into a car dealership and exclaiming. “Who wants to help me out? I am here to spend an insane amount of money!”-Rich
Obama wants “change”
All the “change” you have in your pockets and purses and piggy banks, just for starters!
Criminee. The story in the EAGLE undercuts this thread’s premise. And I quote:
When pushed on an exact number, he joked: “If you’re just talking about income, how about five million?” He added, “I’m sure that comment will be distorted.” (emphasis added).
You you folks have a clue? This is about as stupid as the “McCain cheated because he wasn’t in the ‘Cone of Silence’” meme the Obama people are trotting out.
“Hello, my name is Obama.”-Rich
“Also, ZerObama Zombies, Obama bombed at this forum, by all accounts” — Franklin
All the accounts you read are right wing blogs.
Obama’s Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan
February 14, 2008 01:37 PM ET | James Pethokoukis
What does “change” cost? About a quarter of a trillion bucks a year, according to Barack Obama. But first, this: “I wish Obama would go further than that, but it’s a start,” was the reaction of one DailyKos poster to Barack Obama’s economic plan unveiled yesterday in a campaign appearance in Janesville, Wis. Some hard-core liberals may be underwhelmed by the scope of Obama’s agenda—after all, there’s no single-payer healthcare plan or Scandinavian-style “flexicurity” worker benefits program in the mix—but my guess is that the average person would find it all pretty aggressive. Here are the priciest parts:
A $65 billion-a-year health plan
$15 billion in green energy spending
$85 billion in tax cuts and credits
A $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid
$18 billion a year in education spending
$3.5 billion for a national service plan
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/2/14/obamas-trillion-dollar-spending-plan.html
I think it was Gertrude Stein who said something like, I always wanted to be rich, but I never wanted to do the things I had to do to be rich. That describes me to a T.
I think I’m rich, but you wouldnt know it by my bank account. I’ll always remember GMC’s most flattering comment that he thinks I know how to LIVE!
I’m free of mean bosses and petty workplaces. I have more friends than I can count. I love them, and they know it, and they love me, and I know it. I had parents who loved me.
I eat local and eat well and always have plenty to share with others. And the freezer is always full, and when it’s not, the guns have plenty of shells. The fish are always biting out on my creek. And my neighbors share their beef and pork and I share my chickens and eggs. And I have coffee every morning.
My truck is reliable, my house is tight if shabby around the edges, and all the appliances are in working order. The chickens are happy, I have a great dog friend, the propane tank is full and all the bills are paid. For now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. For today, I’m gonna do what John Prine says and “eat a lot of peaches”.
I have no debt.
And with all due respect to Mary, Linda, Pmom, and Pre, as I’m sure their SO’s think the same of them, my girlfriend is the sweetest, most intelligent, and most beautiful woman in the world!
Oh, and I have heath insurance, even though it costs a third of my income, and I worry every time the annual renewal date rolls around. As a self employed woman of a certain age, I’m pretty sure they will drop me long before I’m eligible for Medicare. (Sol, you know I love ya dude, but you dont know beans about pre-existing conditions or even the POTENTIAL for pre-existing conditions and what they will do to your ability to get coverage at ANY price.)
So am I rich? By my standards, I am. I know lots of folks who are rich by mccain and obama standards, but they dont think they have “enough”.
I think I’m rich because I have “enough”. Not too much, not too little, but enough. My girlfriend told me one time “no matter how little you have, your neighbors are always well cared for”. I was a little offended by that, ’cause I dont think of my self as “having little”, but by city standards, I guess that’s true. I think if I have enough to share, I have enough. And enough is good enough for me.
Now, how many folks can say that?
I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America.
BARACK OBAMA, speech, Nov. 10, 2007
(But I want all your money!)
I’m rich!
There’s not a week that goes by that junior doesn’t tell everybody!
“Increasingly, I [Obama] found myself spending time with people of means – law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart,interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class; the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate.”
Obama says top 5%:
“In an environment of scarcity, where the cost of living is rising, folks begin to get angry and bitter and look for scapegoats. Historically, instead of looking at the top 5% of this country that controls all the wealth, we turn towards each other, and the Republicans have added to the fire.”
‘Rich’ or ‘wealthy’ has nothing to do with your assets or income. You are rich if you never have to base a personal decision based on money.
Liberals always tie ‘rich’ to income. Read “The Millionaire Next Door” for insight as to what ‘rich’ is and what it means to live your life in a way that you can become financially independent.
If you are not rich in this country it’s because you lack the will to make the personal decisions every day to become rich.
That made tears come to my eyes, grrl! I love you and you know it, you love me and I know it too. ;-)
“My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential.”
Obama
You don’t have to be rich – because in America you can sock it to the rich!
You don’t have to achieve your potential on your own – rich people will do it for you.
Obama should be worshipping the rich – as much as he depends upon them in His “generous America”.
Why hasn’t RICH been an issue in previous elections?
BECAUSE OBAMA IS THE CULMINATION OF THOSE WANTING A CLASS WAR IN THEIR TAKE OVER BID OF AMERICA.
Obama gave a realistic answer based on percentages of what Americans earn.
McCain basically refused to answer the question.
Typical.
And Franklin, Obama was talking about yearly gross income.
So, try listening to the man next time.
Back at ya Linda.
Oh yeah, and I have this kind of freedom. After I freeze some peaches and tomatoes, I have Bonanza and Daniel Boone on the agenda for this afternoon. I love shows where the good guys and gals win and doing the right thing is always rewarded in the end.
So unlike real life….
AmWay–
Just because you fight to protect the rich doesn’t mean you get to be one.
Get a clue.
Sol, you know I love ya dude, but you dont know beans about pre-existing conditions or even the POTENTIAL for pre-existing conditions
Roger that Farmie. Don’t know beans.
I’m still a little wet behind the ears as far as understanding the blessings in my life. Still a little hungry for the tangibles.
Since moving out to the sticks though, I might be drying up a bit.
you know I love ya dude
Back at ya Farmie. Times 5.
This is definitely rich —
http://therealmccain.com/?utm_source=rgemail
How do you know Capn?
How much is rich? Isn’t that the post topic?
And isn’t it here because the democrats candidate is planning to class warfare?
Because you hate the rich, and want to sock it to them, there are those who respect the rich, and want their rights (and income) protected equally.
They are a minority you know.
I actually feel sorry for the folks who are rich by mccain and obama standards. I wonder what they had to do to “get rich”. And I wonder if they are happy.
From the sounds of it here, they are always worried someone will take something away from them. I guess that is why I sound so damn happy. What I have, no one would WANT to take away from me. So… I dont have to worry about it :)
And the “rich” folks here seem so worried that somewhere, someone will get something without suffering for it. Hell, if I have to suffer for it, I dont want it. It usually isnt worth the suffering. See also: Gertrude Stein.
I like Alfred E. Newman’s attitude. By my standards he’s the richest man in the whole world! Most of the rich folks I know are so worried about their money and everyone else’s that the wealth seems more like a burden than a blessing.
Guess I better get honkin’ on those peaches. They’re gonna be really good in a cobbler in the middle of winter…
One night at the Russian Tea Room I had $100/oz caviar and $100/shot Russian Vodka. I thought I had it made. Then on Monday morning, I had to go back and eat crap at AT&T world headquarters in Basking Ridge.
Given the choice? I’ll take home grown ‘maters and Bonanza!
Hehehehe. Class warfare out here is waged over Chevy vs. Ford, John Deere vs Case-International. Remington vs. Browning.
Great taste vs. less filling.
Indie
Posted August 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Permalink
This is definitely rich —
http://therealmccain.com/?utm_source=rgemail
Her rate went to 15%. Of course she couldn’t afford it. She should have thought about that when she took out an adjustable rate mortgage.
I don’t know of anyone who to out an adjustable rate mortgage that could handle the increase. Quite bluntly, you would have to be pretty dumb to think you could. Unless you intended to sell before your rate increased.
I don’t know if it is envy or jealousy, but pointing out what someone else has and making them the boogie man is grade school.
I see what some others have and think about how nice it might be to have the same, but I damn sure don’t begrudge them for it.
$100/oz caviar and $100/shot Russian Vodka.
Was it worth it?
Think I’ll settle for some brisket and Miller lite.
Just made a point of what rich is —
name calling is welll ahhhh “grade school”
Heh Sol. With all due respect to David Allen Coe, THSI is the perfect song. Just for you Sol!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPsCdx_DcbE&feature=related
$50,000 a year in income is rich.
BlueJay
Posted August 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm | Permalink
$50,000 a year in income is rich.
——-
Damn!! Looks like I’m not rich……yet.
I’m still happy though! :D
“$50,000 a year in income is rich.”
Oh brother. What a loser who subscribes to Homer Simpson’s “Remember, son. Never try”.
Oh brother. What a loser who subscribes to Homer Simpson’s “Remember, son. Never try”.
While I don’t think that 50K is rich, think about it: How many blue-collar jobs even approach that figure? The people who work hardest in our society usually get paid the least.
And isn’t it here because the democrats candidate is planning to class warfare?
How is it “class warfare” when a politician attempts to resolve runaway debt using the means at one’s disposal, including asking a little more from people who can afford it?
Yet it is not “class warfare” when Republicans run up 6 trillion dollars of debt in less that 30 years, is it? I guess that’s more like inter-generational warfare. Or the joker who maxes out his credit cards, and then cries that he’s being abused by his creditors.
But not to worry: our good friends in communist China will bail us out, again. And those wealthy Americans who have helped service the remainder of the debt will be glad to continue selling us back their tax savings at bargain rates.
Well you know if 1 million is rich to the republicons then I guess they won’t mind us raising the minimum yearly salary for a worker to 50k a year right? I mean, that’s poverty.
“including asking a little more from people who can afford it?”
“I guess they won’t mind us raising the minimum yearly salary for a worker to 50k a year right?”
Socialism 101
$50,000 is rich? I betcha the “rich” strikers at Hawker-Beechcraft might tend to disagree with you.
The people who work hardest in our society usually get paid the least.
You still haven’t figured out basic economics, have you? How much you make has little to do with how “hard” you work. It never did. For the most part, wages depend on the relative scarcity of the skill to be purchased, versus the relative demand for that skill.
The rest is nothing but commentary. And all the legislating in the world won’t change that essential truth.
Socialism 101
The standard refrain of the willfully ignorant. The truth is, you don’t find a single nation on Earth that doesn’t employ some elements of capitalism and socialism respectively. That’s nothing close to creating a socialist state.
And by the way, let’s not forget this “socialist” idea–progressive taxation–was championed by John McCain’s hero, Teddy Roosevelt, for mulitiple reasons that are ignored by the willfully ignorant (sorry: no history lesson today).
The one thing it is not is redistribution of wealth, unless one considers the income tax itself as redistribution of wealth.
*******************************************
You still haven’t figured out basic economics, have you? How much you make has little to do with how “hard” you work. It never did. For the most part, wages depend on the relative scarcity of the skill to be purchased, versus the relative demand for that skill.
No, actually, GMC, I’ve had a complete awareness of this. Those who perpetually cast the lower classes as lazy haven’t yet caught on, though.
#1) Teddy Roosevelt was an idiot.
“The one thing it is not is redistribution of wealth, unless one considers the income tax itself as redistribution of wealth.”
#2) The income tax is a redistribution of wealth.
#2) The income tax is a redistribution of wealth.
Noted for the record: fleettwood is in favor of abolishing the income tax.
Anyone else?
Sol, that list did NOT include the $70 Billion/year cost for Obama’s Global Poverty Act.
0.7% x $10 Trillion in GDP = $70,000,000,000 per YEAR.
This money would be ADDTIONAL money paid to Foreign Countries through – cough – the United Nations.
“Noted for the record: fleettwood is in favor of abolishing the income tax.”
Hell yes!
So now I get called a socialist from the very people who think that rich is 1 million a year or more.
You are all bafoons, seriously.
I don’t see a whole mess of slaughterhouse workers lining up right now to make their 8.00 per hour.
So as far as how valuable the job is based on how many workers there are is bogus.
Political_mama
Posted August 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
Well you know if 1 million is rich to the republicons then I guess they won’t mind us raising the minimum yearly salary for a worker to 50k a year right? I mean, that’s poverty.
——————————————————————————-
Absolutely!
Dishwasher: $50,000
Janitor: $50,000
McDonalds: $50,000
No problemo!
McDonalds: $50,000
——
I don’t know about you P.M., but I can’t wait to pay $20 for a sh*t sandwich from McDonald’s!
Capn
Then Obama is more stupid than I thought.
How is it fair to treat a $250,000 income as “rich”??
If that was income from a business, that person might have had several years of losses, prior to that one “pay off” year.
Income is rarely a good gage of wealth.
Income is only a gage of current year success, not an good example of investment or capitalization or any other factor.
Therefore, heavy taxation of income is counter productive, if we wish to grow our economy.
Say Anti, how much for a 1/2 Pound Double Siht Burger?
It costs roughly the minimum wage now, so $50,000/2080 hours = A new minimum wage of $24.03/hour.
$24 for a 1/2 Pound McSiht Double Burger!
Add Fries for $6 or upsized for $8. And how about a $10 large Diet Coke with that?
Imagine what a nice steak would cost. Or even a pack of gum from a gas station!
Does it really matter what Barack Obama the 2nd (2nd is for the second term of Jimmy Carter) thinks is rich. The taxes he will raise on the rich will affect wage earners clear down to around 40,000.00$ a year. No matter what he says in the campaign, the promised tax increase on the wealthy to pay for, you name it, health care, deficit reduction, fighting global warming, will be a huge kick in the wallet for millions of Americans who do not consider themselves rich. Just like Clinton and Rostenkowski, Obama and Charlie Rangel will have a grand ole time raising taxes. And probably just like Clinton and “Rosti” they will make it retroactive to 2008 ( even though that was and is blatantly unconstitutional ) so we can start paying it next April 15th. My advice is to pray that McCain wins, or go to your HR office tomorrow and get your withholding increased so you don’t get stuck owing a huge tax bill next April.
left mind
BlueJay
Posted August 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm | Permalink
$50,000 a year in income is rich.
*****
Not getting that one BlueJay. I agree with Obama $250K per year is what specialty medicine physicians get. They look to me to be able to get what they want without undue burden which would be consitent with my view of wealthy.
Pall,
As far as I’m concerned, $250K a yr would be luxuriously wealthy, even obscenely rich! I get by nicely on less than 10% of that. I get pretty much everything I need, and even a few of the things I want. My house and my truck are paid for, my kids are grown and supporting themselves (and one even supporting a show horse). I don’t get to travel as much as I want, but I can live with that. I pity all you poor people who can’t possibly get by on $50-60K a yr. You end up not owning anything- it all owns you!
(shaking his head
I see several of you completely evaded pmom’s point, which was, basically, if we are to regard, say, $500,000/year as middle-class, then surely $50,000 must be considered poverty-level income.
People see what they want to see (shrugs).
Funny thing: I lived fairly comfortably on a $4.00 an hour job in 1981. Adjusting for inflation (courtesy of http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ ), that would be $9.94 an hour, or $20,675 a year.
How many of you could comfortably live on that today?
“If that was income from a business, that person might have had several years of losses, prior to that one “pay off” year.”
His NOL carryover would take care of that. Ask your accountant.
” Don’t be surprised if Democrats use McCain’s remark this fall against charges that Obama is an “elitist.”” Randy
I will be surprised because Randy’s premptive retort does not follow and second, the GOP has plenty of ammo to combat Obama than to label him an elitist.
The question that was asked to McCain and Obama was the nebulous “how do you define Rich”.
The claims back in April by Hillary-D (that’s a D as in Democrat) and McCain that Obama is an “elitist” were not at associated with Obama’s wealth but on the statements that he made himself that implicated him as a person that looks down on the ordinary folks who cling to “guns and religion” (instead of vote for himself).
C’mon Randy. Get your A game on. For Starters, it was Democrat Hillary who started this ridiculous “Obama is an elitist” gab.
You know what’s funny?
Ordinary working stiffs like Boxlock and ChrisMac getting all teary-eyed about Obama’s plan to tax the rich.
Unlike you, I actually know wealthy people and for the most part, they couldn’t give less of a sh!t about people like you.
From their point of view, you work for pitiful wages in godforsaken “fly over” country and your outrage is directed at the man who will make the rich pay for living in the society that will made them rich.
“Not all CONs are stupid, but all stupid people are CONs.”
BTW, under Clinton, the national debt went down (in real terms against inflation) and the stock market went sky high.
Under Bush, the national debt has nearly doubled and stock market is lower than it was ten years ago.
How stupid do you have to be to vote for more of the same, John McSame?
“$50,000 is rich? I betcha the “rich” strikers at Hawker-Beechcraft might tend to disagree with you.”
TOP of union grade pay out there is less than $50,000 a year. I know, I worked there.
There are people who make more. But only because they want to or are forced to work overtime.
I wanted for little on less than $50,000 a year. The price on my health was something else again.
For many people, $250,000 is about as attainable as $5 mil. Was McCain judging from his POV or from average America? Or was it all just a joke to him? (He did joke about it, right, GMC?)
Wealth and “richness” is in the eye of the beholder. Those with half a mil will think $5 mil is rich. Those with $25,000 will think $250,000 are rich.
I’ve never aspired to be rich. I’d like to be comfortable and not have to worry about whether there’s enough to pay the bills each month, so I wouldn’t be forced to always buy the cheapest and could (and sometimes have) splurged now and then on something I want, not something I need. I don’t need a jet ski or even a flat screen TV (36″ wouldn’t be bad though) or a fast, hot car. I would like a dependable car and luckily have one…for now.
ksfrmgirl, I’m with you. The value of “rich” isn’t in the money we have, but in how we lead our lives.
Oh, and for the record, my SO doesn’t think any of those things. There is no SO. :) I’m fairly happy and will deal with things as they come along. I’ve learned that worry solves nothing and oftentimes synchronicity does happen. (For those who don’t have a clue what synchronicity is, look it up.)
I’ve been a single woman (and mother with grown children) for eight years. A few of them were bad enough to curl some toes, but I made it. I will continue to make it, one way or another. I promised my kids at the time that we’d be okay. We have been. Not fine always, but okay. My needs, most of the time, are met, although not always surpassed. I can live with that–happily live with that. I really wouldn’t want to live with the fear that the “rich” seem to often live with. It would be constant. Mine isn’t.
Money or no money, each has his/her own bad things to deal with in life. Some have to do with no money, but most has nothing at all to do with it. We make our own happiness.
50,000 a yr. should be the baseline starting poing for federal taxation.
After all how often have we heard, ‘Only the rich pay taxes’.
Rich is not having any needs, poor is to carry the burden.
Money is irrelative to the principles of being Rich.
Responsible says it all.
My happy times and bad times had nothing to do with money..as long as I’m are surrounded by those who I love who love me back, then I’m rich.
Frmgrl…your post was awesome..that’s the kinda genuine rich I’m talking about.
“The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor” – Voltaire
CapnAmerica
Posted August 18, 2008 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
BTW, under Clinton, the national debt went down (in real terms against inflation) and the stock market went sky high.
Under Bush, the national debt has nearly doubled and stock market is lower than it was ten years ago.
Hey El Stupido, I don’t know why I have to explain this to you once again, but obviously you never grasped it the first two thousand times, so here goes again.
Clinton had a low deficit because he, #1- gutted the military, 2-refinanced our national debt from long term to short term notes which we have to re-up every thirty days. 3- was forced by a republican congress starting in 95 to reduce domestic spending. Something that he would have never done had the dems remained in control. He was also blessed during most of his eight years with a dot com driven stock market and cheap energy.
President Bush on the other hand inherited a slumping economy that turned into a full blown recession following 9/11. He also had to greatly increase the military budget after eight years of cuts. Kinda like Reagan had to do after the debacle of the Carter years. Finally, he had to fight a war on terror that Clinton could have and should have fought during his watch. Instead he had to simultaneously fight a foreign enemy and a domestic one (the Democrat Party) at the same time. So don’t give me that BS about how great Clinton was and how bad Bush is.
Chris,
Very well said.
You know, I do have a sneaking sympathy with the paranoid “gun nuts” on this board. KFG pretty much summed it up, and Jed too. Their possessions own them.
As I see it, they must live in fairly nice homes with enough really nice stuff that they live in constant (and largely unjustified) fear of home invasion. But they don’t have enough money for the armored mansion, complete with security guards, and the moat filled with flaming alligators. :)
And, hence, reaching that level of wealth has an importance to them that escapes the rest of us. So they hide under the bed clutching their guns instead.
Ben
You frequently make mistakes on this Blog, yet you love to say:
“Ask your accountant” when you make a false statement or a stupid statement, on taxes, and pretent that what you say matters.
If a person has several years of losses, lets say 3 years, and then, after his “loss carry forward” (Which is LIMITED each year)– shows $250,000, how is that fair to tax all of that at a higher rate??
He is now being taxed on $250,000.00. This would likely put that person in the 33% Federal Income Tax Bracket.
If spread out over 4 years, the three ‘loss’ years and this ‘profit’ year?
That would be $62,500.00 per year, putting him in the 15% Federal Income Tax Bracket, as well.
BTW “know it all” you were WRONG the last time we had a tax arguement as well.
The 10% bracket has been eliminated, for all practical purposes, for the majority of married tax payers with children, for the 2008 tax year.
The Standard Deduction for a married couple is now $10,700.00. The personal exemption is now $3,400.00. Let us assume the family has 1 child:
10,700.00
3,400.00
3,400.00
3,400.00
———-
20,900.00
If this family made $36,550.00 on their W-2 their taxes would look pretty much like this:
$36,550
-20,900
——–
15,650.00
X 10 % Federal Bracket (Ben’s last “point”)
———
1,565.00 “Tax Owed”
-1,500.00 Stimulus Credit
———
65.00 Tax due
Which would be covered by the $500.00 child tax credit, lol. (They could make, actually, an additional $4,350.00 on top of the $36,550.00 and owe NO tax. That would be $40,900!!! My original tax post, that you argued with, earlier this year, was actually lower than this number, and you were WRONG then, too, Ben!)
In other words, most likely, you have to make over $36,550.00 in gross income, in simple terms, before you have to pay any taxes, if you are a family of three. Most likely, you can make up to $40,900.00 if you are a family of 3 and owe NO Federal taxes, if you qualify for the child tax credit!!
You were wrong last time, and I did not have time to argue with you. I let you take your silly victory laps, knowing you would mess up again.
Now that everyone understands the stimulus package, there really IS NO 10% Bracket this year, is there?
—–
Now back to your current mistake —
The loss carry forward is only marginally helpful to the start up business.
Lets forget losses completely, to make this easier for your anal retentive cerebral narcissistic mind:
What if your business broke even for 3 years, and then, on the 4th year, you made $250,000?
Would it be fair to tax you as if you were “rich” only taking that last, 4th year into account?
The current system is unfair. Obama wants to make that system MORE unfair!
Chances are good that you lived on credit those first few years, as the business was starting up.
Again, $250,000 / 4 is $62,500.00.
33% bracket VS the 15% bracket?
How is that fair?
How would it be fair to INCREASE the progressive income tax?
So don’t give me that BS about how great Clinton was and how bad Bush is.
That whole post was, of course, mostly wrong, but I’ll save that argument for another day.
“Under Bush, the national debt has nearly doubled and stock market is lower than it was ten years ago.”
– accomplished with a Republican majority in Congress the first six years.
No excuses!
It’s almost over!
5 months, 4 days, 11 hours, 19 minutes 15 seconds
– accomplished with a Republican majority in Congress the first six years.
“Jeffords’ jump” notwithstanding, that was basically true (who still believes that Lieberman and Zell Miller were really Democrats?).
And how many spending bills did Our Fearless Leader veto during that time–or any bills for that matter?
Zero.
Just thought I would drop in for a moment. I do not know what rich is, nor do I care. I do know what poor is. Poor is an attitude that beliefs that those that work the hardest should have a bigger part of the pie than those that work the smartest. Poor is an attitude that I don;t have what he has because I never got a break. Poor is an attitude that I cannot change my financial condition. Poor is an attitude that I am owed something, just for taking in oxygen. Poor is an attitude that everyone that makes more than me, or has more than me, is an evil bass turd. Broke by the way, is the lack of funds in a qauantity to be able to take care of at least the three basic levels of maslows hierarchy. Night all, and later
littlejohn
Posted August 18, 2008 at 10:57 pm | Permalink
SmileWell, little man, you’re entitled to live within your own mind, but some of us prefer the real world. :)
BTW, I can assure you I value those who “work the smartest.” I’m one of them.
P.S. I’ve never heard anyone called a “bass turd.” Musta had fishing on the mind? :)
1) Rich is being independently wealthy. Not having to work to keep a good standard of living. After taxes, theverage person is paid 50Kx0.75= 40K per year. If you have a lifetime of money in the bank, let’s say 40Kx70yearsx10 forhigher standard of living= 28 million cash in the bank. Of course, add a little to take care of the low taxes the rich pay. If I add 10 percent, that puts it at 30 million.
2) You can work for a living and be rich if you make allot more than the average income. Let’s say the average income is $30K per year, after taxes. A rich person’s income may be 10 times that, around $300K per year, after taxes. In other words, you are rich because your pay is 10 times the average person’s pay. Before taxes, my guess is that a rich person would make 350K per year.
So if you have at least 30 million in the bank or make at least 350K per year, you are rich, in my opinion.
Y’know what the one largest factor is for being rich? Choosing rich parents! And far fewer people get rich on what they know than do on who they know. I’ve dealt with quite a few rich people, and most of them got that way on daddy’s money. The vast majority spend more time at the country club than they do at the office, and I hate to think how much of that office time is spent playing slap and tickle with the secretaries! Hard work, shit! Two days of having to do what most poor people do every day would kill most of them!
This post from KFG is probalby the best post I have ever read on this blog and bears repeating
think I’m rich, but you wouldnt know it by my bank account. I’ll always remember GMC’s most flattering comment that he thinks I know how to LIVE!
I’m free of mean bosses and petty workplaces. I have more friends than I can count. I love them, and they know it, and they love me, and I know it. I had parents who loved me.
I eat local and eat well and always have plenty to share with others. And the freezer is always full, and when it’s not, the guns have plenty of shells. The fish are always biting out on my creek. And my neighbors share their beef and pork and I share my chickens and eggs. And I have coffee every morning.
My truck is reliable, my house is tight if shabby around the edges, and all the appliances are in working order. The chickens are happy, I have a great dog friend, the propane tank is full and all the bills are paid. For now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. For today, I’m gonna do what John Prine says and “eat a lot of peaches”.
I have no debt.
And with all due respect to Mary, Linda, Pmom, and Pre, as I’m sure their SO’s think the same of them, my girlfriend is the sweetest, most intelligent, and most beautiful woman in the world!
Oh, and I have heath insurance, even though it costs a third of my income, and I worry every time the annual renewal date rolls around. As a self employed woman of a certain age, I’m pretty sure they will drop me long before I’m eligible for Medicare. (Sol, you know I love ya dude, but you dont know beans about pre-existing conditions or even the POTENTIAL for pre-existing conditions and what they will do to your ability to get coverage at ANY price.)
So am I rich? By my standards, I am. I know lots of folks who are rich by mccain and obama standards, but they dont think they have “enough”.
I think I’m rich because I have “enough”. Not too much, not too little, but enough. My girlfriend told me one time “no matter how little you have, your neighbors are always well cared for”. I was a little offended by that, ’cause I dont think of my self as “having little”, but by city standards, I guess that’s true. I think if I have enough to share, I have enough. And enough is good enough for me.
Now, how many folks can say that?
KFG you are indeed rich. If I had had even half of what you have I would consider myself a success,but it’s still something I’m striving for
KFG
Some time ago you called me an ass and as I look back Iwas and to some extent probably still am, but after reading your posts for several months, I admit I was totally wrong in my opinion. If everyone had the depth of conviction you have about things you care about and the guts to stand up for them I Firmly believe this country would be a much better place to live in. Once again my apologies for my trying to read something into you that was’nt ever there.
Wal-Mart Recorded a 17% increase in profits while most other places are going under. We can’t afford both gas and food but oil giants still record record profits. I saw a headline on CNN last night about “America’s Yard Sale”, and that America is for sale…We must all be rich!
I think I remember hearing Jesus say something about “if you have two coats, give one to someone who has none” (or something to that effect). Most rich folks I know have 12 coats, that each have a purpose, such as color coordination for the week or whatever (maybe for different Church functions). Something prevents them from giving those extra’s away. Most po’ folks I know will keep giving that coat away until it’s just a thread and a zipper.
I’m for getting whatever you can out of this world (by honest means). I’m also for shooting all those that get whatever they can, by stealing from me.
Noted for the record: fleettwood is in favor of abolishing the income tax.
You’re damn right I am in favor of abolishing the income tax.
If you don’t see it as a redistrobution of wealth, you don’t want to. That is EXACTLY what it is.
*redistribution*
Please forgive. Tardo moment.
ChrisMac–
Your post was rife with half-truth, mistruth, and downright untruth, but let me just focus on two points:
ONE, “Clinton was forced by a republican congress”
He was forced to do nothing. He could veto any bill he didn’t like. Further, in the mid-ninties, he shut the government down rather than let the RepubliCONs ram a bad budget bill through.
TWO, “9-11 happened because Clinton didn’t deal with terrorism.”
After the first WTC attack in February 1993, one month after Clinton took office–which using your logic we should blame on George H. W. Bush who apparently was paying attention to the Al Qaeda threat, the Clinton administration went into high gear against world-wide terrorism. They stopped “Project Bojinka” that would have blown up jets in the Pacific and they intercepted Ahmed Rassim when he tried to bring a car bomb in from Canada during the Millenial Celebration in LA. It was Bush and his Saudi pals who allowed the worst terrorist attack on American soil.
Things were good during the Clinton years and bad during the Bush years for one reason alone–Clinton was a good president and Bush is the
Worst.
President.
Ever.
Actually, Clinton wasn’t that good of a president, but compared to Worst. President. Ever., every president–including Nixon–wasn’t too bad.
“Noted for the record: fleettwood is in favor of abolishing the income tax.”
And I still am.
Thank you freebird. I dont even remember calling you an ass, but I’m sure I did. In fact, you are probably lucky I didnt call you worse :)
In re-reading this thread, I want to say Jed is correct. Had I not inherited my little house and little farm, I wouldnt have it. I was lucky in the parent lottery.
But my own contribution is to be free of wanting. I dont want a new truck. I dont want a bigger house. I dont want a fancy title or a corner office. I like what I have, and I dont covet what others have because I dont want it.
If I had kids, that is what I would wish for them. To be free of want and desire for “more” whatever “more” is.
President Clinton was in office:
January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001
National Debt on Jan 20th, 1993: $4,188,092,107,183.60
National Debt on January 19th, 2001: $5,727,776,738,304.64
Under President William Jefferson Clinton the national debt increased:
$1,539,684,631,121.04
Clinton increased our nations debt 1.5 trillion (count them) dollars.
This is just as wrong for a democrat as it is for a republican. Capn, I’ve told you before about comparing apples to oranges.
Source:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
AW, the point you’re missing is that, after 12 years of runaway debt, the federal budget–the expected operating receipts and outlays–had a gaping deficit, as a “normal” thing, and this was a difficult thing to undo.
Clinton set deficit reduction targets for each fiscal year, and kept them, and his last FY actually ended with a slight surplus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#cite_note-wh2009-2
There may have been a time when Republicans believed in fiscal discipline, but it sure as hell ain’t now.
P.S. Slight correction: Clinton’s last FY in office ended in surplus. FY 2001 was Clinton’s budget, but mostly administered on Bush’s watch.
Rage I will not argue with you that Clinton reduced the rate of deficit spending. Any monkey can increase taxes – the real challenge is to cut spending (which the republicans can’t do either).
Regardless of how Clinton supporters want to frame it, the truth is when Bill Clinton left office: He left our children and grandchildren:
1.5 trillion dollars further in debt.
Besides raising taxes, perhaps a democrat might consider cutting spending. And if you want to start with Defense and corporate welfare – I’m with you.
Solly,
“If you don’t see it as a redistrobution of wealth, you don’t want to. That is EXACTLY what it is.”
Of course it is! The whole history of American capitalism is about redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich. Redistributing a bit of it back to poor people allows the possibility for other people to come along and find new ways to relieve the lower classes of their burden of wealth. Otherwise, all the money would wind up in fewer and fewer hands, until one of us had it all, and nobody else had anything. The Robin Hood solution keeps the economy dynamic!
Hey crappy, once again, I will remind you that mindlessly repeating your stupid little mantra, “worst president ever”, does not make it true.
Jed
Posted August 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
Solly,
“If you don’t see it as a redistrobution of wealth, you don’t want to. That is EXACTLY what it is.”
Of course it is! The whole history of American capitalism is about redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Jed, are you really that stupid, or are you just so ideologically blinded that you really believe what you wrote?
American capitalism, even with its excesses, has placed more wealth in the hands of the poor than any other system since mankind appeared on the Earth. And just what would you recommend we replace it with? Some kind of State owned, State ran collectivism? Maybe you should study the history of the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991 and see how the farmers and the peasants fared under that system.
Jed, being passionate about your beliefs no matter how wrong headed, is one thing. But saying something so totally asinine is quite another.
Chris,
“American capitalism, even with its excesses, has placed more wealth in the hands of the poor than any other system since mankind appeared on the Earth.”
Mind telling us about the payday loan and rent to own industries that charge interest rates that would embarrass a mafia loan shark?
Mind telling us about the migrant farm workers who are cheated out of the $2hr they’re supposed to earn by the industrial agriculture industry?
Mind telling us about all the businesses that outsource production to avoid paying decent wages and benefits? Who contract for child slave labor overseas so you can have designer sneakers and handwoven carpets and plush toys for your kids?
Mind telling us why more of the nation’s wealth is in the hands of the top 1% than ever before?
Not to mention (although I’m mentioning) the Biblical concept: “Unto whom much is given, much is asked.”
I dunno exactly what makes someone “rich,” but it’s a fair-to-middlin’ dividing line (when considering tax policy) that an individual with an adjusted taxable income of $250,000.00 per annum probably isn’t going to starve to death if the tax rate is bumped up a bit.
A second-rate major league shortstop pays all of his annual FICA taxes before the third inning of the season’s opening game. Kevin Costner gets paid more than a second-rate major league shortstop before he’ll even read a script.
And the astounding thing is: the mega-wealthy such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates agree that the uber-wealthy should be taxed more.
But all these Kansas CONs object to tax increases for Paris Hilton and Rush Limbaugh while accepting tax increases from themselves.
“Leave No Billionaire Behind.”
Jed
Posted August 19, 2008 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
Chris,
“American capitalism, even with its excesses, has placed more wealth in the hands of the poor than any other system since mankind appeared on the Earth.”
Mind telling us about the payday loan and rent to own industries that charge interest rates that would embarrass a mafia loan shark?
Mind telling us about the migrant farm workers who are cheated out of the $2hr they’re supposed to earn by the industrial agriculture industry?
Mind telling us about all the businesses that outsource production to avoid paying decent wages and benefits? Who contract for child slave labor overseas so you can have designer sneakers and handwoven carpets and plush toys for your kids?
- – - – - – - – - – - — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – — – - – - – - —
Ah where to begin. First of all, concerning Payday Loan Companies. Well as the old saying goes, ” you just can’t fix stupid”.
The other evils you mentioned are not the result of American Capitalism so much as they are of globalism and so called free trade agreements that has been foisted upon us by the one worlders and the open borders people in both parties.
Jed, what about the hundreds of thousands of companies large and small that employ millions of Americans and pay taxes and play by the rules. They pay decent wages and provide benefits for their people and sustain communities all across America. Yeah, there has been some bad actors who sold out for cheap labor and lax or nonexistent regulations. There are many others who had no desire to leave the U.S. but had no choice once their competitors did. As for those at the top who are hoarding all this wealth, all it will do is buy them a fancy funeral someday. As our Lord said in the Book of Matthew. It will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
This is a good place for another observation.
If you DON’T consider yourself rich? And you vote Republican?
You are a moron.
BlueJay
Posted August 19, 2008 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
This is a good place for another observation.
If you DON’T consider yourself rich? And you vote Republican?
You are a moron.
- – - – - – - – - — – - – — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – — – - – -
Well B.J. as I said in the previous post, you just can’t fix stupid.
I know Chris I know.
If we COULD fix stupid, the Republican party would get like 15% of the vote.
Chris,
“First of all, concerning Payday Loan Companies. Well as the old saying goes, ” you just can’t fix stupid”.”
So your solution is to rip off poor people?
We used to have laws against usury, until the business community lobbied long and hard to get them repealed. What used to be strictly the activity of organized crime is now “just good business?”
“what about the hundreds of thousands of companies large and small that employ millions of Americans and pay taxes and play by the rules.”
You really ought to read a history book or two. Businesses used to treat their employees as commodities to buy cheap and use up. It was only because of unions that employees ever got a fair break, and employers have been resenting that ever since. If they thought they could, the business community would gladly bring back slavery, in fact the garment industry in this country is run mostly on slave and near slave workers in sweatshops. When they can’t do it here, they go overseas and contract slave labor. And they were exploiting legal and illegal immigrants long before free-trade and NAFTA, and hired the churches to help them do it!
“You will eat by and by
In that glorious land up in the sky.
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die!”
-Joe Hill-
Let’s see, I have a 16 year old car that’s paid for, I have a small appartment that I can afford, I have two fantastic kids who make me proud every day and a beautiful 18 month old grandson. I have enough money to pay my bills and and put some away in savings. Hell yes I’m rich,I’m happy with what I have and the most important thing,my family,no one can take from me no matter how bad finances get or what happens to the economy. I’m a happy man