Congress to lay off 240,000

[permabear]

Luckily, there’s actual data available on this topic: http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/5-graphs-on-income-inequality-and-the-great-recession/

Everyone loves to argue opinions on both sides. The fact is: income inequality leads to major economic issues. And currently, there is massive wealth concentration in the US.

Really, it is that simple. Sorry to disappoint those calling for deregulation and lower taxes on the rich.

Now, what IS a valid discussion is what classifies as “rich”. During the early 1900’s, the top tax bracket was $2M. And that was 100+ years ago. I think there is compelling evidence that lowering the top bracket to $250k was an intentional act to get upper-middle-class people on the same side as the actual rich.

$1M in 1910 = $22.7M in 2009, and $2M in 1910 = $45.4M in 2009. Food for thought…

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Zeitgeist]You are wasting your breath talking to a Liberal, Allan. They are fundamentally incapable of reason when it comes to politics. I thought they believed in survival of the fittest, so why do we have entitlements, welfare, subsidized housing, etc? If Darwin is correct and there is no God, then people should make it or not without help from the government. Or was Darwin wrong and we need to interfere with the prime directive and save the poor and helpless. So which is it?
[/quote]

Zeitgeist, you are guilty of trying to turn a content-based discussion into an ad hominem liberal vs. conservative mudslinging fest. Please don’t do it again.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Zeitgeist]You are wasting your breath talking to a Liberal, Allan. They are fundamentally incapable of reason when it comes to politics. I thought they believed in survival of the fittest, so why do we have entitlements, welfare, subsidized housing, etc? If Darwin is correct and there is no God, then people should make it or not without help from the government. Or was Darwin wrong and we need to interfere with the prime directive and save the poor and helpless. So which is it?
[/quote]

Zeitgeist, you are guilty of trying to turn a content-based discussion into an ad hominem liberal vs. conservative mudslinging fest. Please don’t do it again.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Zeitgeist]You are wasting your breath talking to a Liberal, Allan. They are fundamentally incapable of reason when it comes to politics. I thought they believed in survival of the fittest, so why do we have entitlements, welfare, subsidized housing, etc? If Darwin is correct and there is no God, then people should make it or not without help from the government. Or was Darwin wrong and we need to interfere with the prime directive and save the poor and helpless. So which is it?
[/quote]

Zeitgeist, you are guilty of trying to turn a content-based discussion into an ad hominem liberal vs. conservative mudslinging fest. Please don’t do it again.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Zeitgeist]You are wasting your breath talking to a Liberal, Allan. They are fundamentally incapable of reason when it comes to politics. I thought they believed in survival of the fittest, so why do we have entitlements, welfare, subsidized housing, etc? If Darwin is correct and there is no God, then people should make it or not without help from the government. Or was Darwin wrong and we need to interfere with the prime directive and save the poor and helpless. So which is it?
[/quote]

Zeitgeist, you are guilty of trying to turn a content-based discussion into an ad hominem liberal vs. conservative mudslinging fest. Please don’t do it again.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Zeitgeist]You are wasting your breath talking to a Liberal, Allan. They are fundamentally incapable of reason when it comes to politics. I thought they believed in survival of the fittest, so why do we have entitlements, welfare, subsidized housing, etc? If Darwin is correct and there is no God, then people should make it or not without help from the government. Or was Darwin wrong and we need to interfere with the prime directive and save the poor and helpless. So which is it?
[/quote]

Zeitgeist, you are guilty of trying to turn a content-based discussion into an ad hominem liberal vs. conservative mudslinging fest. Please don’t do it again.

Rich

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).

[Author]

Posts