Obama on the debt limit

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen,

Not creating children that we cannot feed...THAT is funny. How do you propose we stop THAT?

birth control??? maybe a trip to Planned Parent Hood that is partially funded by our tax dollars.

[David Lay]

Stephen,

Not creating children that we cannot feed...THAT is funny. How do you propose we stop THAT?

birth control??? maybe a trip to Planned Parent Hood that is partially funded by our tax dollars.

So is Viagra.

[Stephen Eisel]

And WHAT exactly is the root of the problem if it isn't the unequal distribution of wealth?

Unequal distribution of wealth is not the problem. Taxing the rich and giving the government more money does not work. The Government does not create jobs or wealth. The government creates a dependent class of people (usually for generations)...or more liberal voters..

[Thealexa Becker]

You think the rich getting richer is a mantra, and yet you quoted it as a
fact...Contradiction?

No!
Not only are there more rich, but they're also richer a big difference from just the rich getting richer.. now there are more rich..

BUT THEY ARE RICHER. That is EXACTLY the same thing as what I was saying.

So you have not addressed the issue that I brought up, only rephrased it in an attempt to package it as a different statement. I don't care HOW MANY rich there are, the point is that the rich people in general are richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Do you have numbers that suggest that a significant number of people have become "rich" recently? Because that might be something more worth discussing. It is simple to find data that suggests the poor are worse off, I would like to see you back up your argument with solid statistics. Show that these formerly poor or average wealth Americans are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps to be "rich". Because I have a sneaking suspicion that it's just people close to being "rich" who crossed the threshold and not representative of the average guy being more able to become rich.

Otherwise, all you have done is just made what I said more depressing.

[Stephen Eisel]

BUT THEY ARE RICHER. That is EXACTLY the same thing as what I was saying.

No, the rich getting richer would mean that the group "the rich" was not expanding.. The article that I posted showed that more people are becoming wealthier not just people who are already are rich.

[Stephen Eisel]

I don't care HOW MANY rich there are, the point is that the rich people in general are richer and the poor are getting poorer

You should care about how many rich ther are in total. If the number of rich is increasing then that means another category is decreasing.

[Stephen Eisel]

Do you have numbers that suggest that a significant number of people have become "rich" recently? Because that might be something more worth discussing.

The Forbes article that I posted talked about the number of individuals worth $1 million or more increasing world wide.

[Stephen Eisel]

Do you have numbers that suggest that a significant number of people have become "rich" recently? Because that might be something more worth discussing.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/05/pf/mill ... /index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Despite the Great Recession, which wiped out $15.5 trillion in household wealth in the United States alone, the number of millionaires in this country and abroad will grow rapidly over the next decade.

In the U.S., the total number of families with a net worth of over $1 million, including real estate, will double by 2020, according to a report by the Deloitte Center for Financial Services

"There is going to be very fast growth, but it will take a lot longer to reach anything like the wealth in the developed world," said Andrew Freeman, lead author of the report

http://www.chron.com/business/article/N ... 682802.php

The number of U.S. millionaires increased by 600,000 in 2010, according to a report by Spectrem Group.

[Thealexa Becker]

What I wanted to know is what other income category did they come from? Are the already pretty rich just becoming really rich? Or are the poor people who shop at Wall Mart skyrocketing to Rockefeller levels?

But here is another issue. One million dollars today does not mean the same thing as a million dollars in Rockefeller's time. So the fact that there may be more millionaires in the future could merely be another effect of inflation.

Also, your numbers include real estate, which inflates things as well.

And here is another issue with this. The millionaires, who are still not that numerous, hold over 50% of the wealth of the country, and they are definately not in the majority. That bothers some analysts.

Now, if you clicked on related links at the bottom of the first article you posted, you would see a link to this article:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/22/news/ec ... tm?iid=EAL

Which has some interesting information talking about how 90% of the households in America see no real change in their income levels. And that it is basically only the already rich who are getting more benefit out of this.

I fail then, to see how what you are saying is supposed to be a beacon of good news. It isn't. All it is is just what I was saying before, that the already rich are getting richer than they were. Now factor in some of the things I mentioned above, and what you have is basically an attempt to put a positive spin on a not so amazing statistic.

In 2009, the richest 10% of Americans accounted for about half the nation's wealth. Narrow that focus a bit further, and the trend is even more alarming. The top 0.1% -- those who make at least $2 million each year -- controlled 10% of the economy.

That's a far cry from the 1950s, when the suburban American dream ruled: the bottom 90% of Americans controlled about 68% of the economy.

Would you like to explain how this is a positive statistic for mainstream America, which I am sure you are a member of as well?

Is this not just as bad as too much government control, based on what I have heard people say? The top .1% of the wealthy people controlling 100x their share of the economy? And they aren't elected officials.

Now, I'm not suggesting that it is a bad thing for those with more money in the economy to control a bigger share than people who have little in it, but I am merely looking at the proportions of the control distributed and raising a more specific question to see where people's beliefs truly lie.

If you have a problem with elected officials messing with the financial system publically in ways that you are not happy with, I ask you if you feel differently about that statistic which suggests that wealthy private individuals have a huge degree of control in a not so public setting? You can't vote them out of office.

So if you are fine with a few wealthy people who are NOT representative of the interests of mainstream, or even of conservative America, having more control over economic issues simply by merit of the fact that they have more accrued wealth than the average guy, and as you say they are getting richer and there are going to be more of them, then fine, that is your opinion.

But I feel like most people would find that somewhat unsettling. I mean, only a fool would believe that the uber rich, which you again, point out are growing in number, don't have a significant impact on financial matters. Look at Warren Buffett bailing out Bank of America.

Sometimes I am convinced that people just read headlines and interesting numbers in articles but fail to grasp what they really signify. Yeah, that statistic you posted, Stephen, looks like it should be positive, but in actuality, it isn't. Perhaps you should do some research into what the Gini index is and what it means and some different economic interpretations of it. It might give you a better and fuller perspective on this issue rather than just a few random articles.

[Stephen Eisel]

Also, your numbers include real estate, which inflates things as well.

Real-estate is an asset.

[Stephen Eisel]

Would you like to explain how this is a positive statistic for mainstream America, which I am sure you are a member of as well?

You keep on changing your argument. The bottom line is that taxing wealthy people at higher rate will not make the lower income peeps richer or improve their life.

you said that

BUT THEY ARE RICHER. That is EXACTLY the same thing as what I was saying.

No, I have shown that there are more and more millionaires in the US / rich people since 2008.

Do you have numbers that suggest that a significant number of people have become "rich" recently?

Yes, I porvided proof that the number of millionaires in the US has increased by 1.5 million since 2008 and projections have the total current number of millionaires doubling in by 2020.

In 2009, the richest 10% of Americans accounted for about half the nation's wealth. Narrow that focus a bit further, and the trend is even more alarming. The top 0.1% -- those who make at least $2 million each year -- controlled 10% of the economy.

That's a far cry from the 1950s, when the suburban American dream ruled: the bottom 90% of Americans controlled about 68% of the economy.

How does this suppport your argument without any proof that the standard of living has been negatively impacted for most since 1950. How many families in the 1950's had two cars? How many more material goods, services, and luxury items are available now to the average family then in the 1950's?

[Stephen Eisel]

So you have not addressed the issue that I brought up, only rephrased it in an attempt to package it as a different statement. I don't care HOW MANY rich there are, the point is that the rich people in general are richer and the poor are getting poorer.

not true.. Poverty in the US usually stays between 13% - 17% and is cyclical.

[Stephen Eisel]

Thealexa Becker wrote:Sometimes I am convinced that people just read headlines and interesting numbers in articles but fail to grasp what they really signify.

In 2009, the richest 10% of Americans accounted for about half the nation's wealth. Narrow that focus a bit further, and the trend is even more alarming. The top 0.1% -- those who make at least $2 million each year -- controlled 10% of the economy.

That's a far cry from the 1950s, when the suburban American dream ruled: the bottom 90% of Americans controlled about 68% of the economy.

You do realize that the average poverty rate is now lower than when compared to the 1950's? so much for grasping

[Thealexa Becker]

Stephen,

You do realize that the poverty line has not adjusted properly for inflation since it was established? That it is actually lower than it should be? That some people who are above it should technically be considered poor?

Like I said, you should read about the Gini index since it's something basic and easy to understand and is taught in intro economics, usally accompanied by an explantion of why the poverty line is not a correct estimation.

I am not changing my argument. I don't think that the rich getting richer is necessarily a good thing. I don't understand why you won't answer my questions but instead just respond with repeating your argument, which seems to be that if everyone gets richer that will solve things. No, that just means that the definition of rich will adjust. If I am misinterpreting you, perhaps that is a sign that you need to articulate your stance more clearly.

Once again, do you think it is a good thing for .1% of the country to control 10% of the economy? Is that what you mean is a good thing by there being more rich? And how is that any different than there being a few politicians controlling the debt ceiling?

Until you answer these it will be impossible to know if you have a stance on this issue or just like to debate using numbers you pulled off CNN.

[Stephen Eisel]

Once again, do you think it is a good thing for .1% of the country to control 10% of the economy? Is that what you mean is a good thing by there being more rich? And how is that any different than there being a few politicians controlling the debt ceiling?

Yes, it is a good thing that .1% of the country controls 10% of the "economy". They obviously understand how to make money and also help to create jobs.