Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The first Great Depression was caused by a record high concentration of wealth. Here we are again. Depression on the way. No redistribution. No recovery.

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 21, 2011, 9:34 a.m. EST by Mcc (542)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. The upper class held around 30%. The middle and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed. Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A massive redistribution of wealth. 

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause.   No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. Do your part to reverse that obscene concentration of wealth. It's tricky but not impossible.

No redistribution. No recovery.

164 Comments

164 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by therising (6643) 13 years ago

The award-winning film "Inside Job" narrated by Matt Damon expertly chronicles how the collapse happened. It was not an accident. Some very bad folks crashed our economy. And they knew exactly what they were doing.

[-] 1 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

The government endorsed what was going on. The collapse was due to the housing collapse. That movie leaves out some important details or mentions them in passing. Example no doc or liar loans were briefly mentioned. And those played a major part in the CDO collapse. Blame goes all around

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 13 years ago

Was this at the theater, I've never heard of it

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 13 years ago

Yes. In theaters and through all the normal channels. Very high quality documentary. Impeccably researched. "Why we fight" is also a stunning documentary. A third documentary I would recommend is "the Corporation". Enjoy.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 13 years ago

Is this it http://vimeo.com/25142692 it doesn't say anything about mat damon

[-] 0 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

What a convenient opportunity for a filthy rich actor to blame others with no regard whatsoever for the record high concentration of wealth.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 13 years ago

Trolls love the ad hominem. It's like their "Big Mac". It tastes good to them. It's cheap. And yet, it makes them smelly and fat as they stare mindlessly at their computer monitors clinging to the way things were. Ot's over guys. You lost. Time to join the 99%. We welcome you with open arms.

[-] 2 points by peer55 (2) from Rotterdam, ZH 13 years ago

Europe is not different from the United States. Exactly the same problems Mcc states. Politicians, liberal, conservative, democratic, socialist, socialdemocratic, libertarian, religious, fundamentalist, nationalist, communist, whatever, they're all politicians, in the meantime a big problem in the entire world. It is not common English, but in Dutch we say: "Whenever a politician, never mind his/her 'ideals', has been chosen and is sitting 'on velvet chairs' (the parliament), he/she suddenly changes in favour of 'politics', 'the rich' etc. and forgets his/her 'ideals' and all his/her promises to the people. That is the world nowadays. A bit religious language: Commandment 10: Thou shalt not covet etc. etc. Symbolic, but a very great cause to the depression, it is all about greed! Yes, one can translate it in such a symbolic way. A little example of 'democratic' Holland: one of our political parties, VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) has asked the mayor of Amsterdam to remove the Occupy people from the Beursplein in Amsterdam. VVD is - in name - a liberal party (compared to the USA, a party nowadays between Democrats and Republicans - not the Tea Party). But again: politicians in the government, forgetting their original 'ideals'. It is not so democratic to remove the Occupy people, because these people also have their democratic right to demonstrate. But of course this is not the interest of the VVD-politicians.

Mcc could be serving well in Europe as well, he would be a perfect member of our SP with his last words, don't be afraid, SP (indeed socialdemocrats) is not dangerous, dirty, whatsoever. I've seen SP in several local governments (cities, provinces), again: politicians and no changes, forgetting their 'ideals' and promises. That is why the people of Occupy Amsterdam did not like the presence of the chairman of the SP, trying to speak in Amsterdam. Even our very right-wing party (really fascist-like) PVV has turned into real 'politicians'. However I personally do not favour this kind of party at all.

Yeah, the USA and Europe have a common history, most Americans originate from Europe, also the Great Depression, World War, higher taxes on the rich. Indeed in Europe the richest one percent own over 40 percent of wealth.

I like to say I respect every opinion, we're all entitled to have our opinion, but let's just try to respect (a magic word???) each other and really see we're in big problems worldwide (the world is a village) and do something to improve the situation. Unfortunately we can't expect anything from politicans and the few (absurd) rich.

Mcc, you're right, it's up to us. Your solution is certainly not mistaken.

Dear fellow men, this is just a part of how I am thinking and feeling. We're all just people, we all want to have a normal life, with all possibilities, welfare, work, education, health care, a good 'quality' of life.

Mcc, indeed tricky but not impossible, people just have to believe in it, be convinced that we should do it ourselves and not wait for politicians or any few (absurd) rich.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

It sure is nice to know that a few of us agree on some big issues. Thanks for the post.

[-] 1 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 13 years ago

On the way? It's here and here to stay. It's just a media black out, doing it's best to appease the mob and distract it

[-] 1 points by Novista (14) 13 years ago

Here's a blog that analyses the first one in detail:

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=23487

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 13 years ago

right on. here's my 3 cents;

Here's how we can easily Reform Wall Street: Take away their powers "once again." And a Million People March to Capitol Hill will help get it done!

For example, "We are here Congress because we want to REINSTATE the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1aPEc3wX which helped saved our country from the Great Depression by preventing investment companies, banks, and insurance companies from merging and becoming large brokerage firms; instead of just being Banks and Insurance companies--Congress why can't you learn a history lesson from 1929? Btw, why did most of you vote for its final repeal in 1999? http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act (2nd story here)

Think about where we are now, it all started in 1999 with lawmakers like Senator Phil Gramm who helped create legal gambling casinos for our banks: CNN's The Ten Most Responsible for Economy Collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQOxr2wBZQ&feature=related

Furthermore, we also want you to CHANGE the Commodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 BACK to where it was before 2000, which since has deregulated energy markets and consequently allowed for such scams as The Enron Loophole; whereas in the early 2000's Enron Corp. was charging 250 bucks plus for a kilowatt hour...They all when to jail for this. But, the Enron loophole is still not closed, for example, allowing speculators to resell barrels of oil over and over again before it reaches the gas station owner. It's basically legal gambling at our expense. What were those lawmakers thinking then? What are you thinking now? Either do the right think, or you're part of the 1%."

Why are oil prices high? The Enron Loophole. Former head of U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission speaks to Congress on the high price of oil--and he's not happy about energy deregulations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related

Rolling Stones Reporter: Truth about Goldman Sachs--how they have cornered the markets--basically, The Enron Loophole and the Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waL5UxScgUw

Let's get focused and bring back Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, they got it right 1933, we don't need to REINVENT the wheel because bringing this Act back will create an even playing field once again....and let's finally Close the Enron Loophole, which allowed Enron to charge what they wanted for energy; they went to jail for this; but no one closed the loophole, why? Re-election Monies from the banks and oil companies! The writing is on the wall.

[-] 1 points by Novista (14) 13 years ago

Your first paragraph certainly hits it out of the ballpark. Wall St AND government have been in a symbiotic relationship. Each enables the other.

One minor quibble: Glass-Steagall was not repealed; but modified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

See section 3 there. Thomas E. Woods also discusses this in "Rollback". I mention this only because the disinformation enemies will seize on any slight error to say "See, they don't know what they are talking about."

GLB wasn't even needed, nor passed, for CONgress to give Citigroup a 'Hail Mary' waiver to merge into a godzilla in 1998. Symbiosis. Smoke & mirrors from the best politicians that money can buy! Maybe the congresscritters are hoping the movement hasn't noticed them. A million person march would disabuse them of that wan hope. And change.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 13 years ago

Thanks for pointing that out; need to update my POST, perfect. For me, since watching the senate hearings on oil speculation on CSPAN in 2008, this has been my mission, and once I heard about the OWS, my dreams were answered. At least, the world is getting more educated about what we have to do: rebuild the walls of regulation. After all, even Greenspan finally admitted in 2008 that he forgot to factor in the Greed Factor into his free markets equation...

So why are oil prices high? The Enron Loophole. Former head of U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission speaks to Congress on the high price of oil--and he's not happy about energy deregulations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related

Rolling Stones Reporter: Truth about Goldman Sachs--how they have cornered the markets--basically, The Enron Loophole and the Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waL5UxScgUw

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 13 years ago

Tax cuts for the wealthy are the real failed stimulus package brought to you by the GOP - and it cost 10 times more than Obama's stimulus.

Very true. The part I don't think you mention is that the wealth concentration of the 1920's was fueled by massive tax cuts for the wealthy that were passed by the GOP. It lead to the wealth concentration you describe, an investment bubble, bust ... the Great Depression. Sound familiar?

The tax cuts for the rich were supposed to encourage investment and strengthen the economy. Instead, average GDP growth during the 30 years since the tax-cuts-for-the-rich began has dropped 25% compared to the 30 prior years. When President Clinton increased taxes on the wealthy, the GOP predicted recessions and unemployment. Instead we had the best economic decade of the century. The GOP and President Bush reduced taxes on the wealthy and we suffered our worst economy in 80 years. Our only other worse recession (the Depression) occurred the last time the top 1% accumulated 40% of the nation's wealth, soon after Republicans slashed taxes on the wealthy in the 1920's. Sound familiar?

How do tax cuts for wealthy investors produce worse growth? Here is the main way: The favored tax treatment for investments and the wealth concentration that resulted leads to the demand for investments exceeding the supply of worthy investments ... Any attempt at regulation is overwhelmed by "supply and demand" market forces (see Econ 101) ... The price of investments MUST rise "artificially" and unsustainably ... Investment bubble ... Burst bubble ... Recession ... Every 6-8 years all but the wealthiest are at risk of losing their jobs, their homes, their opportunity to educate their kids, and their retirement savings ... and the government loses more tax revenue.

For more, including a proposal for comprehensive tax reform which would have everyone pay their fair share, cut middle-class taxes, reduce the deficit, improve the economy for everyone, and strengthen the US as a for good in the world: http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 2 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

You're right. Taxes were cut drastically for the rich just before the Great Depression. I'll add that point to my essay. Thanks for the reminder and the great post.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 13 years ago

Thanks. Here's a good source: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/ It shows in the early 1920's the top regular income tax rate dropped from 74% to 25%; the rate on capital gains dropped from 74% to 12% ... We had the roaring 20's. Th top 1% got 40% of the nations' wealth (just like now) and then the biggest bust (the Great Depression) and the most economic suffering in history.

Please take a look at my website http://fairsharetaxes.org ...send suggestions. If you like it ,plug it whenever you can. There are ideas for promoting the plan at: http://fairsharetaxes.org/Spredthetaxreformword.aspx

[-] 1 points by John123 (5) 13 years ago

Do you want a faster track to victory? Do you want a faster track to employment? Do you want a faster track to healthier environment? Do you want a faster track to empowerment?

learn how Occupiers http://inkrumguardians.webs.com/

[-] 1 points by RevolutionaryTruth (95) from Houston, TX 13 years ago

therevolutionarytruth.tumblr.com

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – Florida is touting the new jobs it created Friday after a positive unemployment report. But based on numbers from all W-2’s filed in the country, the wages simply aren’t keeping up.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.

In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.

Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 13 years ago

time for this, once again:

Here's how we can easily Reform Wall Street: Take away their powers "once again." And a Million People March on The Hill will help get it done!

For example, "We are here Congress because we want to bring REINSTATE the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1aPEc3wX which helped saved our country from the Great Depression by preventing investment companies, banks, and insurance companies from merging and becoming large brokerage firms; instead of just being Banks and Insurance companies--why can't we learn a history lesson here Congress? Btw, why did most of you vote for its final repeal in 1999? http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act (2nd story here)

Think about where we are now, it all started in 1999 with lawmakers like Senator Phil Gramm, he made it all legal gambling: CNN's The Ten Most Responsible for Economy Collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQOxr2wBZQ&feature=related

Furthermore, we also want you to CHANGE the Commodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 BACK to where it was before 2000, which since has deregulated energy markets and consequently allowed for such scams as The Enron Loophole; whereas in the early 2000's Enron Corp. was charging 250 bucks plus for a kilowatt hour...They all when to jail for this. But, the Enron loophole is still not closed, for example, allowing speculators to resell barrels of oil over and over again before it reaches the gas station owner. It's basically, legal gambling at our expense. What were those lawmakers thinking then? What are you thinking now? Either do the right think, or you're part of the 1%."

Why are oil prices high? The Enron Loophole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related

Rolling Stones Reporter: Truth about Goldman Sachs--how they have cornered the markets--basically, The Enron Loophole and the Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waL5UxScgUw

Let's get focused and bring back Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, they got it right 1933, we don't need to REINVENT the wheel because bringing this Act back will create an even playing field once again....and let's finally Close the Enron Loophole, which allowed Enron to charge what they wanted for energy; they went to jail for this; but no one closed the loophole, why? Re-election Monies from the banks and oil companies! The writing is on the wall.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

awesome point- absolutely true...

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

a brake down in the money system resulted in milk being poured into ditches

resources were not distributed to the people

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Good analogy.

[-] 1 points by friendromanscountrymen (1) 13 years ago

the first depression did not have an FDIC or Social Security, Medicad and all the other "new deal" stuff this is in place today, that is why it was so harsh. Also among the many many causes of the wall street crash was Margin Trading with much lower requirements for individuals than today.

[-] 1 points by enlightened (177) 13 years ago

excellant post

do you have any links to support that. I did read about the great depression on the web it was an eye opener

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

I hope I don't blow my credibility here. My facts about WWII, FDR, taxes, and wealth distribution are well documented. Most of my views overlap with those of Albert Einstein, Mariner Eccles (chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR), Robert Reich (former secretary of labor), Edward Wolf (nationally known professor of economics and author), Allen Greenspan (chairman of the Federal Reserve under 4 administrations), and just about every professor of economics. There are many experts worldwide who have gone on record on the heavy concentration of wealth and it's drag on the economy. But my mini-essay on the Great Depression is my own. I didn't find the puzzle assembled in writing. I found pieces and put it together. I hope that doesn't blow my credibility. But it's the truth. I'll find the quote from Mariner Eccles and post it. Basically, he compared the economy to a poker game and said that when one player had all the chips, credit ran out and the game stopped. He was referring to the Great Depression. I already posted the quote from Greenspan on this page.

[-] 1 points by enlightened (177) 13 years ago

I found a video that explains the crash in details and clips of senate hearing. I very clearly explains how it happen and who took the money. It was out right theft

If you are interest in looking at the video(you should be) I will find again. It is high detail and based on facts

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

The following is a quote from Robert Reich. He blames the Great Depression in large part, on a heavy concentration of wealth.

As economics professor Robert Reich notes:

First, the rich spend a smaller proportion of their wealth than the less-affluent, and so when more and more wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, there is less overall spending and less overall manufacturing to meet consumer needs.

Second, in both the Roaring 20s and 2000-2007 period, the middle class incurred a lot of debt to pay for the things they wanted, as their real wages were stagnating and they were getting a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. In other words, they had less and less wealth, and so they borrowed more and more to make up the difference. As Reich notes:

Between 1913 and 1928, the ratio of private credit to the total national economy nearly doubled. Total mortgage debt was almost three times higher in 1929 than in 1920. Eventually, in 1929, as in 2008, there were “no more poker chips to be loaned on credit,” in [former Fed chairman Mariner] Eccles' words. And “when their credit ran out, the game stopped.”

And third, since the wealthy accumulated more, they wanted to invest more, so a lot of money poured into speculative investments, leading to huge bubbles, which eventually burst. Reich points out:

In the 1920s, richer Americans created stock and real estate bubbles that foreshadowed those of the late 1990s and 2000s. The Dow Jones Stock Index ballooned from 63.9 in mid-1921 to a peak of 381.2 eight years later, before it plunged. There was also frantic speculation in land. The Florida real estate boom lured thousands of investors into the Everglades, from where many never returned, at least financially.

Tax cuts for the little guy gives them more "poker chips" to play with, boosting consumer spending and stimulating the economy.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Here is one article on Mariner Eccles. He blamed the Great Depression almost entirely on a heavy concentration of wealth.

From the blogpost at London Banker here are excerpts from testimony by millionaire Marriner Eccles to a Congressional Committee in 1933.  It was an historic event because Eccles made recommendations for the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board reforms, income and inheritance taxes, social security and unemployment insurance among other far reaching ideas. 

Beyond that Eccles provides a precise description of the problems faced by the US then, during President Franklin Delano’s second year of office.  It’s astonishing how much his description of the problems then match our current problems.  He showed what was needed to be done back then.  Unfortunately for the US today, this speech and Eccles’ reasoning have long been forgotten.  So we continue to do the wrong things today, to repeat the errors that were made in the late 1920s and early 1930s which plunged the country into a Great Depression.

From the post:

I repeat there is plenty of money today to bring about a restoration of prices, but the chief trouble is that it is in the wrong place; it is concentrated in the larger financial centers of the country, the creditor sections, leaving a great portion of the back country, or the debtor sections, drained dry and making it appear that there is a great shortage of money and that it is, therefore, necessary for the Government to print more. This maldistribution of our money supply is the result of the relationship between debtor and creditor sections – just the same as the realtion between this as a creditor nation and another nation as a debtor nation – and the development of our industries into vast systems concentrated in the larger centers. During the period of the depression the creditor sections have acted on our system like a great suction pump, drawing a large portion of the available income and deposits in payment of interest, debts, insurance and dividends as well as in the transfer of balances by the larger corporations normally carried throughout the country….

The maladjustment referred to must be corrected before there can be the necessary velocity of money. I see no way of correcting this situation except through Government action.

Beezer here.  Eccles saw that there was no shortage of capital in the country, but that there was a huge drop in demand caused by an increase in private debt.  He correctly saw that this imbalance basically left most of the country impoverished and under employed, with all the money concentrated in the hands of a very few at the top of the income ladder.  Interestingly, he argued against increasing the money supply.  It was not needed, Eccles believed.  The problem was primarily one of distribution–money had flowed upwards from labor to banks and creditors.  Too much so, therefore Eccles recommended raising taxes on the wealthy, including tax reform that reduced the ability to pass on wealth via inheritances.   By doing so, Eccles argued, demand would be returned to previous levels and so would employment and overall economic health.   And so too, Eccles made clear, would the ability to pay down both private and national debt.

Here is another:

http://wasatchecon.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/frb-head-marriner-eccles-on-the-great-depression

I'm still looking for the best Mariner Eccles quote. I'll find it.

[-] 1 points by bobbo (4) 13 years ago

how come no one talks about the 50% how pay no taxes at all?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23828) 13 years ago

A new statistic came out today that 50% of Americans earn less than $26,000 per year. That's why they pay no taxes. Try living on that.

[-] 1 points by DirtyHippie (200) 13 years ago

Who are they? Hmmmm. Which people aren't paying? And why don't they pay? Don't throw a number like that out for discussion unless you're prepared to give a fucking dissertation on it.

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

47% of US households do not pay FI taxes. I'm prepared to give a fucking dissertation. And don't start whining about state, ssi, etc. We are just talking about FI. And if you challenge that, it's not a fair statement as it doesn't include all of those other elements, I'm also prepared to show with the exception of a few odd states, the state tax paid is fairly proportionate to the non paid fed taxes. While it is true, the lower income brackets do show they pay more in sales tax, The evidence points to the fact that they buy more crap purchases (and lottery tickets).

[-] 1 points by DirtyHippie (200) 13 years ago

I can go toe-to-toe with you. I agree to the terms as I understand them: we're talking about FI only, no state, SSI, sales,or other miscellaneous. Back to my questions on that 47%. Who are they and why don't they pay?

[-] 1 points by TleilaxuGhola (11) 13 years ago

FOX does not go beyond the talking point, don't expect him to do so.

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

Why, funny that you should ask. Have a read. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf 87% of the 47% are under 40k. 31% are under 10k, which would be predominate students/part time. More interesting is the 98% in ~100k territory that actually do pay taxes. I am middle class. And I am the 98%.

[-] 1 points by DirtyHippie (200) 13 years ago

My info is from the irs.gov website using data from 2009 income tax returns. The numbers are similar. It's how you present them that I find objectionable.. You say that most of the non-payers are clustered at the bottom of the income scale. I say it differently. In the $40,000 - $50,000 income group, 78% did pay federal tax. In the $30,000 - $40,000 income group, 67% did pay federal tax. In the $25,000 - $30,000 income group, 53% did pay federal tax. In the $20,000 - $25,000 income group, 46% did pay federal tax. In the $15,000 - $20,000 income group, 42% did pay federal tax. Even in the under $15,000 income group, 14% did pay federal tax. My impression is that some want to demonize the lower income earners by leaving out the details. A large number of the under 40k did pay federal. Why some do and some don't is in your link. The Child Tax Credits made the difference most of the time in 2009. I often hear people say 47% are not working. 47% are lazy free-loaders. 47% don't have skin in the game. 47% are the problem. I'm glad you have some figures. I hope you see my point. There is no clear dividing line based on income. It's the credits and deductions available that put people in the 47%. Consider the folks who are earning a bit more but paying no federal tax. Are they part of the problem too? In the $75,000 - $100,000 income group, 4% did NOT pay federal tax. In the $50,000 - $75,000 income group, 12% did NOT pay federal tax. I'm a writer and I'm working on a story about this topic. I have a lot more to say about it. But not here.

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

Good that you are objective, and correct: I could word it rationally either way and make two different points. I don't factor the credits in my view as everyone (except the top 20% of earners) gets them, so it's moot. Point is, half of America pays no fit. Argue about rates, but the more you make, the more you pay in a predominate number of cases. In addition the dependent credit system VASTLY tilts towards the poor as you get more money for more kds, and it phases out starting at 70K >:(. Its tiresome talking taxation with many on this forum as they've never had to file long forms, or do tax planning every year, and find just how much better off the guy down the street is for making 10k less than me.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 1/2 of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. The bottom 95 percent of Americans share about 3 percent (that's three percent) of all dividends. The rest are paid to the top 5 percent and foreign investors. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.

Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher. The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.

This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.

[-] 1 points by DirtyHippie (200) 13 years ago

Gotta be objective and gotta be a numbers cruncher which few are. So after all the details about using the credits and deductions to reach amount owed = $0.00 what do you do with that 47%? That's what I want to know. The Child Tax Credit actually phased out at $110K in '10 (if filing jointly.) Near that threshold, the credit would reduce amount owed but not all the way to $0.00. Let's say we get rid of the credit. Most of the $40K-$50K will fall out of the 47%. People above that, who were using the credit and still paying FI, will have to pay even more. It will be interesting to see where this ends up. You can't talk to the American people about it because they can't even balance their check books. Anything simple sounds good to them.
By the way, I love the title of the TaxPolicyCenter report. It's not 47% of people, it's 47% of "tax units." I laugh at stuff like that. No one can explain clearly what a "tax unit" is. The data I have is based on returns. A return doesn't equal a person. Some are single, some are joint. I've been told that there is no actual data with the same level of detail for individuals. Using the returns, about 42% of them fell into the non-taxable category, which is close enough to the 47% number. My point is that the 47% isn't a horizontal layer at the bottom of a pyramid. It's actually a vertical structure that reaches all the way up to income over a million, though it's a small number at that level.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 1/2 of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. The bottom 95 percent of Americans share about 3 percent (that's three percent) of all dividends. The rest are paid to the top 5 percent and foreign investors. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.

Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher. The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.

This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.

[-] 1 points by DirtyHippie (200) 13 years ago

Agreed. 100%. I could even add to it. The ever increasing concentration of wealth has reach a point where it resulted in social instability in other countries with a similar wealth distribution profile. This means rising crime and/or political unrest sometimes followed by repression. Most people cannot abide the thought of someone earning 20 million and complaining about making do with 18. I cannot approve taking dollars from the lower end because it would be counterproductive. Those are dollars that get spent quickly and circulate through the economy benefitting everyone.

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

Taxes would be incredibly complex to solve. Shooting from the hip, I'd eliminate tax brackets and flat tax everyone on earned income (as opposed to agi). Then the ignorant would not be able to say rich pay less taxes. 15% of earned income right off the top and it's fair to everyone. I'd probably make stg, and ltg closer to each other so we could stop hiding the pea on investment income. But it would have to be fair and low. As it stands I am being penalized for investing instead of buying drugs. That's no good long term.

[-] 1 points by bobbo (4) 13 years ago

how come no one talks about the 50% how pay no taxes at all?

[-] 2 points by skander (10) from Leesburg, VA 13 years ago

1.it's 47%. 2. they do pay Federal taxes, it's called payroll taxes of Social Security and Medicare which can not be exempt never mind State and local taxes. 3. The reason they don't pay the other Federal taxes is the income is so unequal they make too little money. However they still contribute to the economy. And more likely than not they are contributing far more than they are getting paid for. 4. That's a reason to make things more equal, once lower and middle class makes more income, they can better contribute and pay taxes. You immoral brainwashed Fox viewer think they should still get paid a lot less than the deserve and on top of that pay more taxes so the rich could get richer.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

If I may be picky, the latest figures on income tax filings is 36% didn't owe taxes. The 47% is inflated so it sounds sexier.

And you are right on regarding the rest.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

A few facts.

First of all, anyone who buys anything pays taxes. Sales tax, just for a start. Then there are property taxes, paid directly or through rent. Payroll deductions are taxes under another name. A lot of government fees are really taxes.

So there aren't 50% paying no taxes at all.

Second, income taxes: of the people who filed income taxes, 36% did not owe any income tax. That means that their taxable income was below $8,500.

They are mostly the poor, students who worked part time or in the summer, and the elderly who don't make enough to have their Social Security taxed.

There are people who want you to be angry, to feel cheated by some vague group of lazy bums and cheaters, so that you won't address things like crony capitalism.

When GE makes billions and pays no income tax, that's just wrong.

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

31% below 10k. More alarming is 87% of households below 40k don't pay FIT. Semi flustered about Corp tax policy, but same argument could be made for them as you just made for people (payroll tax, FICA, ssi).

[-] 1 points by bobbo (4) 13 years ago

and yet everyone elects and returns the same people back into office. anyone notice how long Schumer, Pelosi, Frank, Reed etc been in washington?????

[-] 2 points by DirtyHippie (200) 13 years ago

If you were really concerned about length of tenure, you would have included Bill Young and Don Young (not related), both Republicans, both served longer than the people you listed. You also would have included Hatch and Lugar, both Republicans who served in the Senate longer than Schumer. You're full of shit.

[-] 1 points by bobbo (4) 13 years ago

and yet everyone elects and returns the same people back into office. anyone notice how long Schumer, Pelosi, Frank, Reed etc been in washington?????

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

I'm sure those names have something in common. Hmmm. Care to name a few more? Maybe, I just need another clue. What's their favorite color? Red or blue?

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 13 years ago

Did We Surrender When The Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor ? ! (dont stop him he's on a roll)

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 13 years ago

Disagree.

[-] 0 points by RichardGates (1529) 13 years ago

Bingo!

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Try Monopoly. Then read this:

We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic politicali manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitationi workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.

[-] 0 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

JohnB

It would be VOLUNTARY. Give it to the gov if you want to. Some fight for freedom of choice why not fight for financial freedom. I should have the right to do whatever I want to do with my money (within legal means)

The crashes of 2001 and 2008 there was the biggest money making opportunities in recent history just in the stock market. Plus I don't have to buy stocks, I can buy bonds, I can buy property, I can give it away, I can feed the homeless, I support my parents, I can support my children or myself. Bottom line it's mine, I worked for it. Should I have the right to spend it how I choose?

Not if there is no money to spend because I am forced to give it to the Gov.

And let's be real. Congress has been dipping into that pot for decades. It's only solvent on paper.

[-] 0 points by samsausage (77) from Lees Summit, MO 13 years ago

Here is what you are proposing:

You take a cup of water from the deep side of the lake and pour it into the shallow side of the lake, then tell people you made the lake deeper for everyone. It doesn't make sense..

[-] 0 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Wrong. What I'm suggesting is to take a cup of water from the deepest of 99 sinks which are all placed at an incline and connected by a thin rubber tube. Pour the water in the shallow sinks to prevent them from going completely dry.

[-] 1 points by samsausage (77) from Lees Summit, MO 13 years ago

doesn't make sense, try again.

[-] 0 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Next.

[-] 1 points by samsausage (77) from Lees Summit, MO 13 years ago

If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it.

[-] 0 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

Maybe it's just your analogy that doesn't hold water?

[-] 0 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Next.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 13 years ago

I love good fiction.

Is this a review of a book based on an alternate history? I would be interested in knowing the title.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Next.

[-] 0 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

How is taking money from the rich going to improve my life? It's not like there is a pile of money out there and the rich are keeping it from us.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

Incorrect. They are sitting on trillions of dollars in their reserves alone. The top 1% owns more than the other 99% combined. Between 1945-1975 the income distribution as correlation with Nationa Gross Domestic Product created the largest middle class in history - and it was in many ways an economic and political golden age.

If the same distribution were done today, and adjusted for inflation - the majority of household in the U.S. would be making more than $100,000 per year. Instead it's somewhere around 47k, less than half. The 1945-75 generation was twice as rich and prosperous as we are now.

The money is still there for this shared prosperity - but's it's now all concentrated at the top, because the rich rigged the political system to gain themselves special privilege - everything from competitive advantages, to no-bid contracts, to MASSIVE tax breaks.

Solution? MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.

[-] 1 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

If the system is rigged then why did Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Opra Winfry and many others become billionaires.

I do agree with getting money out of politics. I would like to see real campaign reform. Like a limit on how much can be spent on a campaign. So when the limit is reached no more contributions can be excepted. It would force candidates to operate within a budget. Which would be good practice for running the country.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

Just because the system is rigged, doesn't mean you can't win within it. You just have to be that much smarter or lucky. The people you mentioned above are either very smart, very lucky, or some combination of both. They also got their start in an economy that was far more middle class than it is today. Then there was far more opportunity, jobs and upward mobility than there is now.

[-] 1 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

Then explain Madame C. J. Walker. The system doesn't get much worse for a person.

Even the current CEO of Goldman Sachs grew up in the Bronx. I like a quote by Chris Gardner (his life was the inspiration for the movie The Pursuit of Happyness) said "hard work pays off period". And if lady luck want to help I won't stop her.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

You are SO missing the point. Please explain to me how a guy who doesn't produce anything for the real economy only has to pay 15% tax, while the hardest working stiff has to pay 35% income tax? Easy - the rich people bought our political process so they would get these grossly unfair tax breaks.

[-] 1 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

How about stick with the original founders tax policy. The gov taxes the state and the state taxes the people (the original union fees) (Remember the constitution had to be amended to collect income tax). Problem: If the state stops paying taxes is the state out of the union. How about a flat tax? How about a progressive flat tax?

Do you have an example of people who don't produce anything but still only pay 15% in taxes. Keep in mind our country has become a large service bases economy.

I will say if you want to raise the tax on the rich to lower mine, that is alright with me. But that won't happen. Plus you could take all the money from the top 1% and still not cover all the expenses our country has accumulated.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

First off - to who does our country owe the money? Answer: Banks. The same banks who are now destroying our country. And that especially includes the central banks.

Secondly, the U.S. spends more on it's military than all the world's militaries combined! Cut the entire defense budget in half, and we'd still have the bigest military, while saving more than $600 billion a year. Put that money back into the mainstreet economy and even if we keep the taxes the same as they are now, the overall tax revenue would increase, making it easier to pay down the debt (assuming that we play by the banks rules). This was already done once, in the years right after WW2.

[-] 1 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

Actually China holds the largest portion of our dept. (I hear the fed ownes more but I haven't been able to verify)

There is room for the military to make some cuts. But there is more room to make cuts elsewhere . Example the Department of Education. The department could probably be cut in half the the test scores wouldn't change. Local and sate municipalities have more control and take in taxes directly for education, usually though property tax (p.s. most rich people own alot of land thus pay more in property tax). This is one department that does distribute wealth.

With all the talk about making cuts you sound like a tea partier.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

I'm not a Tea Partier because almost all of the cuts they propose are for the social safety net - which I strongly support.

[-] 0 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

Do you support the cuts or social security. Social security cuts can come in the form of simply raising the retirement age (although not specifically cuts)

I like the option of privatizing it. It would be optional. I can put my money in the market or put it in the current system or perhaps a combination of the two. But I would take my future into my own hands.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

All the money in Social Security was paid directly by us from our paychecks. Social Security is a totally seperate fund from the rest of the U.S. federal budget. It is also completely solvent until 2037, and 85% solvent until 2060.

Privatize it? Are you crazy? You want me to give my money to the same financial terrorist who brought our economy down. That's the most insane proposal, ever! Especially in light of what we now know since 2008.

[-] -1 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

Ok first of all the hardest working stiffs pay nowhere near that in taxes. And the guy not producing is paying 17% for long term capital gains. If that person takes a stcg, and only then is it taxed as high as nominal tax rate. Which for most middle class would be 25-34%. But stcg are taxed higher because it's "found money". Buffet pays little because he hasn't needed money in 20 years. He rarely sells his winning investments (never at stcg rate, ever) and he collects dividends at his nominal income tax rate (approximately 18%). How you ask is this possible? It's actually quite simple. He only pays himself 100k a year, and has so forever. He then donates enough of his salary to charity (65k) to lower himself to a 15% bracket (agi 34k). His then long term capital gains (dividends aged 13/mo) are taxed from 15-19%. If he cashes anything in, guess what. He gives a boatload of it to.....you guessed it, charity. Quit whining, because the only thing you will ever be taxed that high on is a winning lotto ticket.

[-] 1 points by stray (219) from Philadelphia, PA 13 years ago

Um... yes, that's pretty much exactly the case.

Two options:

  1. Print a metric fuckton more money
  2. Redistribute
[-] 0 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

How can there not be redistribution when 47% pay NO income tax?
The problem is entiltements programs are designed to keep the poor...poor. When one receives entitlements the GOV says how much you can earn, how much you can keep in your checking and savings accounts and how much wealth you can have.

[-] 1 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

Income tax is not the only tax, those 47% still pay taxes and all the profits that corporations make.

[-] 0 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

The 47% that are paying no taxes are not the top 1%. \They are middle class who take advantage of loop holes in the tax system. These same people are taking advantage of all the service taxes pay for..... The real problem is that 47% of the population that earned income did not pay taxes and they are not likely to vote in anyone who wants them to start...

By the way this doesn't include the population with little or not reported income because they are on entitlement programs...

Fix that one.... oh yeh... tax the ones paying taxes more... that's it....

[-] 2 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Wrong: The lower 47 percent pay no Federal Income Tax. This represents less than 1/2 of government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and income levels. Including the lower 47 percent. The largest tax breaks by far have been given to Wall Street and the richest one percent. This was an erosion of policies intended to prevent a heavy concentration of wealth. Throw in record high charges for health care, energy, and finance. This means record high profits for Wall Street and the richest one percent. This results in a heavy concentration of wealth and a net loss for the lower 90 percent. Primarily, the bottom half. This reduces their ability to make ends meet and pay taxes. Those breaks for the lower 47 percent are necessary. Some entitlements are necessary. There has always been a downside. I'm all for welfare reform but not massive cuts. That would only lead to chaos.

[-] 1 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

Chicago... the lower class is destroying the middle class. Trickle up poverty. Even the upper 2 % are see the effects some. I think we basically agree.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

That's insane. Look at the tables representing distribution of wealth over the last 35 years. They disprove your claim.

[-] -1 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

$14,000,000,000,000 (fourteen million million) plus $1,600,000,000,000 added each year. We currently can not pay the interest on this money with our tax revenue. Taking all of the money, not taxing all of the money, of those making over $250,000 per year does not fill the gap. The clear implication, taxes do not do the trick so "taxing the rich" is nothing but a Democratic buzz word to incite support. We must stop spending and that means some are going to suffer, some. If we do not control this insanity, we all will suffer, ALL. Are you aware that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of wealthy Americans making contingency plans to leave America if this thing blows up? No? It is true. Are you aware that millions of Americans are making plans to unite for mutual protection if this thing blows up? No? Well, it is true also. On the verge of collapse and the damned Democrats are still name calling, finger pointing, twisting words, lying and any thing else they can do to further a failing ideology. No? Read:

  • The ten poorest cities and percentage of population below the poverty level:
  • Detroit , MI 32.5%
  • Buffalo , NY 29.9%
  • Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
  • Cleveland , OH 27.0%
  • Miami , FL 26.9%
  • St. Louis , MO 26.8%
  • Chicago, Ill. 26.4%
  • Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
  • Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
  • Newark , NJ 24.2% U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 What are the common threads? Democrats and unions Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954. Cincinnati , OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland , OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989. Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor until now and he was recalled St. Louis , MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949. Chicago, Ill (7th) has never had a Republican mayor. Milwaukee , WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908. Philadelphia , PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952. Newark , NJ (10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.
  • In the history of our federal government: 5 Representatives have been expelled. All 5 were Democrats. 14 Senators have been expelled. All 14 were Democrats. 21 Representatives censured. 16 Democrats, 5 Republicans. 7 Senators have been censured. 4 were Democrats, 3 were Republican. 2 Presidents have been impeached. Both were Democrats. The troubling facts: 80% Democrat offenders, 20% Republican A ten year old child can look at the facts above and see the common threads. The nation is next if this insanity is not stopped, now and forever
[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 13 years ago

Good, and once they are out of the way, we can prove that Russian-American novelist, Ian Rand, wrong. It’s kind of funny: there is an old joke that says, while Americans paid millions of dollars to develop a zero G pen to work in outer space, the Russians used a pencil. The new take on the joke is: while Americans played dominoes in Asia to defend free markets and hinder Russia’s philosophy, the Russians just sent the US Ian Rand. If you don’t get it, read Atlas Shrugged.

[-] 0 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

I have read it. Can't wait for the movie.

[-] 2 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

I'm going to skip all the partisan crap and go straight to those poor cities. Most of them have been deindustrialized. Guess who made it happen? Democrats? Not really. Republicans? Not really. The rich? Damn right. They wanted cheap labor, low taxes, and record high profits. Ch'Ching!

[-] 1 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

Wong. Enviromentalists were now and always backed by the Chinese. They worried we were polluting and many went overseas where they had NO Pollution laws. At least we made many industries responsible China never cared. Now that they ruined their water supply they are starting to catch on. Liberlaism alwasy has a reverse effect.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Yes. Thats it. Those damn liberals. How foolish of me. And the record high profits? Just a lucky break?

[-] 1 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

You think China is not making record profits? No corporation can survive without profit. Apple is doing the same. LIberaqls never complain about APPLE.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

I'm no stereotype and I have. Rotten marketing practices.

[-] 1 points by danno1977 (5) 13 years ago

Nice. It's tough to refute facts. I have to balance my budget on today's dollars not on dollars I might make next year. Why hasn't the Senate passed last year's budget or at least bring it up for discussion. No it's easier to blame the rich. I say get rid of Congress, the President and start over utilizing the principles stated in the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

I think so too.... this is a complex issue that I how this exposure helps improve... it will nerve go away, but it needs to get better

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

The 47% are mostly children in school and the elderly with low incomes.

In reality, 36% of those who file income tax returns pay no income tax. That means that they have taxable incomes of $8,500 or less. To be middle class and be in that group, you have to have a mortgage, a lot of kids, and massive medical bills or other legit deductions.

If you are a student and work the summer, you probably have income below $8,500. If you are a senior on social security with very little other income, ditto. Unemployed? Working poor making very little, with a family?

Entitlement programs don't add up to much in this country, unless you include corporate welfare.

[-] 2 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

Taxable income is income after deductions... I can make $100K a year, take write offs to get me down to your $8,500, especially if you run a small business...there are reams of deductions you can take if you're smart enough to say you have a small business.. did you know that the overwhelming preponderance of small business in America are one-person businesses?... many of your personal expense can be written off as business expenses....One of the best ways is to buy a house I can't afford because someone told me the interest is tax deductible. They're all legitimate deductions... not saying people are breaking the law...... Most are as you say students and elderly, but a lot are not.....Oh and they all vote.....

we have a whole industry geared for just doing that... oneof the big reasons that you wont see a "fair tax" approved any time soon is the unemployment associated with such a movement would be staggering....

[-] 0 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

Economists have studied the 36% who did not owe income tax. Yes, it is possible to jack up deductions, but the vast majority of those 36% are the people I described.

I run a small business myself, but don't cheat on my deductions. Personal expenses can't be written off legally. I've studied my legitimate deductions, and use all of them, and yes I do pay income tax.

However, I'm against unfair tax shelters. Am also against the "fair tax" proposals I've seen because they all make overall taxation more regressive.

[-] 1 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

Don't have a dog in this fight I'm just looking for a way to make things better.... I do my best to play well within the line with the IRS... historical it was been postulated (can't say I researched that facts) that almost everyone makes mistakes on the tax return that could be construed as cheating. Tax code is extremely difficult to fully understand and I run an accounting form which as a tax practice as part of its services..

I'm not sold yet... this could change... that the problem is the 1%'er are not doing enough.... I'm more inclined to believe the government is extremely inefficient and wastes a lot of tax dollars. Some of that waste is incompetence, but more is by design to help their reelection prospects...

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

Agreed. Transparency on how items get in the federal budget improved slightly in recent years, which is a small step away from waste to buy votes.

[-] 1 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

Transparency in my opinion is at an all time low.... look at ObamaCare.... it is full of fine print give always that have never been mentioned to the public.... they used pork to by votes.... now before you say I hate ObamaCare... I don't... I do hate the way congress passed it....anyone afraid of open public debate before they vote is hiding something... I read the entire bill and boy are they.....

the biggest problem I have with the Obama administration is if they did this with healthcare what else have they done that we aren't even aware of yet. They had complete control of both houses of Congress and the White House, what went on they they didn't think we needed to know... if Healthcare reform is an example.... I'm concerned....

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

There is a great deal that needs to be improved, I agree.

[-] 1 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

I could be wrong, but pretty sure you don't need a mortgage to qualify, the rest of your post is accurate as far as I know.

[-] 0 points by samsausage (77) from Lees Summit, MO 13 years ago

"The 47% are mostly children in school and the elderly with low incomes"

Your assumption is wrong, these statistics are based on people who file taxes, children don't file taxes and are not included in this statistic. Only people who filed their taxes are considered.

[-] 0 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

The statement is "47% of those who file income tax returns pay no income tax" My working kids file every year... it's the only way they can get a refund of the taxes that are deducted from their paychecks. Therefore... Kids file for Income Tax and need to be subtracted from the 47% to see what percentage of working adults don't pay income tax. Same goes for non-working elderly that file.

[-] 0 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

The stats on people who file tax returns is 36% not paying taxes. The 47% number is an inflation. To get to that, you have to include school children.

The way I said it wasn't clear.

However, the research on the 36% is that they are overwhelmingly low income people, including students working part time and the elderly who don't make enough for their Social Security to be taxed.

[-] 0 points by samsausage (77) from Lees Summit, MO 13 years ago

No, you are wrong, I'm getting sick people here spreading rumors and false figures, be it on purpose or through ignorance. It has to stop as people are not basing their decisions on facts but fiction.

  1. It doesn't include children, it is for people filing taxes only
  2. there are plenty of people who make more than $8,500 that pay zero taxes, some get money back! This is due to deductions,credits and exemptions. When you look at the actual IRS statistics you will find the bottom 50% pay only 2.7% of all Federal Income Taxes, the top 50% pay 97.3%

Here is left leaning NPR quoting the 47% figure and you will note it specifically states "Filers" as in people who filed Federal Income Taxes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

For the real numbers you need to go to the source, the IRS. You can check the statistics on the IRS.GOV website here: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html

There is some good information on this IRS Page: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html

Further info directly from the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08inratesharesnap.pdf

This is a very good report from the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/11intr08winbul.pdf

Show us your source that supports your numbers.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Quit confusing the tax structure. I've heard that BS about the lower half paying no taxes too many times.

Again. The lower 47 percent pay no Federal Income Tax but they pay many other taxes and fees. Local, state, and federal.

Federal Income Tax represents less than 1/2 of all government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and income levels.

The largest tax breaks have gone to Wall Street and the super rich who spy only 15 percent on capital gains income. Which is often in the hundreds of millions annually.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

Here is a source for the 36% of filers, from a conservative site.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/03/tax-foundation--1.html

The 47% number from NPR was a prediction, not a result, in the article you cite. It says in essence, by his estimate, 47% will pay zero. The person they are quoting is far from left-leaning.

He was wrong in his prediction, but it keeps getting quoted like gospel.

[-] 1 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

The statement is "47% of those who file income tax returns pay no income tax" My working kids file every year... it's the only way they can get a refund of the taxes that are deducted from their paychecks. Therefore... Kids file for Income Tax and need to be subtracted from the 47% to see what percentage of working adults don't pay income tax. Same goes for non-working elderly that file.

It seems you are the one misrepresenting facts. Don't your kids pay taxes and file for their refund?

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 13 years ago

Most of the people who "aren't paying taxes" ie no Federal income tax are people with incomes below 50K per year.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2409

99% of people (filers) with income under 10K per year don't pay Federal Income Tax - lol, so even if you skew the system to make them pay tax, how much revenue can you actually garner from a 10,000 income? Should we just confiscate all of it and turn them into slaves?

Really?

[-] 0 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

Entitlements for the poor were not intended to be permanent. The idea was to basically keep them alive while they improved their life and eventually take care of themselves. Entitlements (social security, medicare) are technically not a tax. It's more of a retirement fund. But our good ole government spends it like a tax.

My question is what did the elderly and poor survive before the entitlements?

[-] 0 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

Well, the elderly had a suicide rate that was 40% higher than it is now. And death came earlier due to ill health.

Part of that was because medicine was not as good as it is now, but part was economic. In my family, a great-great grandmother died because of the time it took the family to raise the money to get her an operation she needed.

The poor used to die from hypothermia much more than now; the elderly also. (You may have noticed that I'm a history geek.) Families lived together, often in crowded conditions that make for horrific reading.

Social security was designed to be permanent. No one foresaw the baby boom, followed by the baby bust, which has complicated the demographics.

Medicare was also designed to be permanent. No one foresaw the increases in expensive medical technology, which has been complicated by laws that jack up prices by protecting profits of powerful companies.

The worst example of this is that Medicare is forbidden from using its buying power to negotiate down medication costs. The pharma industry had, and has, an terribly powerful lobby.

[-] 1 points by avery45 (11) 13 years ago

If no one is paying taxes then how are things getting paid for?

[-] 1 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

It's call a tremendous debt ceiling just approved by congress.... just print money

[-] 1 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

BINGO!!!!

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

If you want to understand, try Monopoly.

[-] 1 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

Only if I can be the banker and print my own money. That would make it more real.

[-] -1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Wrong: The lower 47 percent pay no Federal Income Tax. This represents less than 1/2 of government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and income levels. Including the lower 47 percent.

The largest tax breaks by far have been given to Wall Street and the richest one percent. This was an erosion of policies intended to prevent a heavy concentration of wealth. Throw in record high charges for health care, energy, and finance. This means record high profits for Wall Street and the richest one percent. This results in a heavy concentration of wealth and a net loss for the lower 90 percent. Primarily, the bottom half. This reduces their ability to make ends meet and pay taxes.

Those breaks for the lower 47 percent are necessary. Some entitlements are necessary. There has always been a downside. I'm all for welfare reform but not massive cuts. That would only lead to chaos.

[-] 0 points by samsausage (77) from Lees Summit, MO 13 years ago

I would like to know how do you give a tax break to someone who doesn't pay any taxes?

[-] 2 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

That is the break. They pay no Federal Income Tax. They pay many others though.

[-] -1 points by Zteacher (30) 13 years ago

I don’t agree with a redistribution of wealth. That won’t do any good, since your taking money away from the job creators. But I do believe that America is in desperate need of a new system that places emphasis on job creation. Capitalism in its current form will eventually cause more inequality, and will ultimately undermine the middle class in America. What do these executes believe will happen when the Middle class evaporates, and employment reaches 20% and beyond. I have conceived of a new idea that I think some of you may find interesting. It’s called Utilitarian Capitalism. The system is designed so that Corporations would have to weigh profit equally with the human element. If utilized, I believe I could be an effective job creating tool, and could spread prosperity far more extensively. You can visit my Forum post called, Utilitarian Capitalism an appeal to Rationalism, or just check out this link. https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/bdbPRg. In any regard, keep the ideas coming.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

Interesting, and certainly better than what we have now. I would argue though that it has already undermined the Middle Class to a very significant degree. If the income distribution was the same as it was in 1965, the average household would now be making over $100,000 per year as a percentage of GDP. Also, who are these so-called "job creators"? They have destroyed far more jobs than they have created. They are not job creators - they are job destroyers, pure and simple. There are exceptions to this rule, but taken en masse, the corporations have destroyed (i.e. automated or offshored) far more jobs than they have created, given themselves huge bonuses, while forcing less people to do more work (increase productivity), the list goes on and on.

[-] 1 points by Zteacher (30) 13 years ago

Well, I can understand that viewpoint. However, if what you are saying is that Major Corporations can’t be an effective job creating tool, then you are not seeing the broader picture. They are still creating jobs, but not within America. The system that I’ve thought up would hopefully reverse that trend. Right now Corporations are thinking about society as whole, if that line of thinking can be changed, then prosperity could grow at an unprecedented rate.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

Corporations are not thinking of society as a whole. They are thinking only of themselves, their profits, and their quarterly projections. Extract as much wealth as they can, as fast as they can, regardless of it's cost to the environment, the people, and even the countries in which they operate. They privatize their gains and socialize/externalize their losses (especially the financial corporations).

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

They are thinking of their shareholders. Which would largely be....the 99%

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

Actually when it comes to large financial institutions, they don't even think of their shareholders. Have you seen BofA's stock prices lately? All because of malfeasance of the current and ex CEO's?

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

Share price was diluted as a result of raising cash to pay off tarp, and represents a buying opportunity. I am a shareholder and doubled down on the dip.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

I haven't even had breakfast yet. This is getting to be a full time job. The only point I'll make for now is this. Jobs aren't created unless their is a potential profit to be made. If the profit is drawn primarily from the lower 90 percent and the profit made primarily by the top 10 percent, then the lower 90 percent end up with a net loss unless the top 10 percent spend the profit down one way or another. That hasn't been happening. The wealth has been concentrating for 35 years.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

Thank you for stating it so clearly.

[-] -1 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

Not much of a historian... short note.... 35 years ago would be 1976...we went through a recession in 1974, 1982 and 2000.... none of them were consider the great depression of 1929....

Misstated facts invalidates arguments.... key to getting what you want is to be less emotional and more factual.... Most of your argument seems to be based on a predisposition that redistribution was the single biggest unused tool in the government arsenal...even though FDR used it as his biggest hammer...

What really brought us out of the Great Depression was the build up of the war factories to supply goods to Europe to fight the Nazi's in the mid 30's.... nothing helps a depression like a good war (sarcasm, just in case you didn't notice)...

[-] 2 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

I'm aware of those recessions. It's common knowledge. Still, there has been a gradual concentration of wealth over the last 35 years. Go ahead. Deny it so I can throw the evidence in your face.

Fact: There was a massive concentration of wealth in the years leading up to the Great Depression.

Fact: The recovery involved a gradual redistribution of wealth.

Fact: There has been a massive concentration of wealth, over the last 35 years.

You're missing the point. FDR's policies, along with WWII were of great benefit to the middle class. Less to the rich. Much less. I'm sure you understand the concept of growth. Everyone does. But do you understand the concept of relative buying power? At the end of WWII, the middle class ended up with a net gain. The rich, a net loss. The trend continued. By 1976, the lower 90 percent held the majority of US wealth. This gradual redistribution of wealth was the recovery.

I challenge you to confirm or deny the following:

Concentration of wealth just before Great Depression. Gradual redistribution of wealth from the '40's to the mid '70's. Concentration of wealth from mid '70's to present time.

I think we can agree that our economy is once again unstable. Let me guess. Those damn liberal policies?

[-] 2 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 13 years ago

You need to learn that correlation does not equal causation.

The build up of wealth is a symptom of a problem, not the cause of it.

[-] 1 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

I think the post clearly states "greed" as the problem, which causes build up of wealth, which in turn leaves the "lower classes" with nothing.

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 13 years ago

Greed is most definitely not the problem. Greed is a "good" thing actually, its what keeps us getting up in the morning and going to work. The opposite and checking force of greed however is failure. When there is no failure, greed goes from being a good thing, to being a destructive thing.

That is EXACTLY what has happened. Through the Federal Reserve system we have provided a free and limitless supply of capital to sector that gets bailed out by the government, and even in some instances REWARDED, when they fail. There is a great quote I have used all over here:

"Blaming this crisis on greed, is like blaming plane crashes on gravity" - Thomas E Woods.

Cut off the limitless capital and return the risk of failure and your system fixes itself.

[-] 1 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

Love is what gets me up in the morning, but thanks for telling me it was greed, I never knew.

I do agree with your remark on the lack of failure though, it does play a part in the root of the problem. But so does lack of education especially among the poor), and lack of truth in advertising.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 13 years ago

Oh you know what I meant. Greed is what keeps you at your job. Love is free. A house, food, a car...etc are not.

[-] 1 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

no... love propels me, and it is not free... it takes all my time (and sometime a lot of effort). I work because I love my family, and I want them to be intelligent people with a chance to make a difference in the lives of other people. In America, I have to pay for the things I can't do for them. I have barely been able to provide for my family, and rather not see my kids go though the hardships I had. Where I live, my kids need me to drive them to work. Before I had kids, I worked where I wanted, and quit jobs on principle. I was homeless for a time as well, and that is not a bad thing, because it taught me quitting wasn't the answer, but to instead make the job I wanted to keep better by whistle-blowing and joining committees and unions when I could. I learned that I deserved to work, and I deserved respect at my job, and to fight for it.

Don't get me wrong, I know greed. We have 3 computers, a fuel efficient car and a van for when I need to haul something. We have a house with 2 TVs and furniture, but very little other excess. I want my kids to be happy. I play computer games when I have time or need to unwind.

And to be fair, I know what you mean, I just don't call it greed ... but it is a desire for something more.

I agree greed isn't bad, but excessive greed is bad, and I think that's what this discussion should be about. It's the excessive greed of those that have more then they need that take money away from the less fortunate.

As of yet, I'm not sure we disagree, I think we just have different uses for the word greed.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 13 years ago

Nice post kwinter.

As I told mcc, I think most of us here want the same thing, how we get there, well that is a matter for debate later :)

[-] 0 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually destabilize democratic capitalism itself." -Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in the spring of '05'.

If that's not good enough. Albert Einstein, Mariner Eccles, Ron Paul, Robert Reich, Edward Wolf, and just about any professor of economics.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 13 years ago

My brother had HIV, he died of Colon Cancer. The Colon Cancer got so bad that it killed him. He would have never gotten Colon Cancer (at the age of 31) had it not been for the HIV.

Which is the root cause of his death? Capice?

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

If that story is true, then my deepest sympathies. I can only imagine what it's like to lose a close family member. Just the thought is gut wrenching. If it's true, my deepest sympathies.

I'd say the HIV. Not sure I get the analogy though.

[-] 2 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 13 years ago

The story is very true, thank you for the condelences (this happened 15 years ago). The analogy is that direct cause of his death looked to be colon cancer, but the HIV was root cause.

The same can be said for wealth concentration. Wealth Concentration that is too high can indeed choke an economy. What you should be protesting against is what LED to that wealth concentration.

[-] 2 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Greed. It grows with every zero on the paycheck. If we would have kept the pay scale reasonable (maybe 1-20 based hourly), then greed never would have become the epidemic it is today.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 13 years ago

No. Here is a reply I have to someone else:

Greed is most definitely not the problem. Greed is a "good" thing actually, its what keeps us getting up in the morning and going to work. The opposite and checking force of greed however is failure. When there is no failure, greed goes from being a good thing, to being a destructive thing. That is EXACTLY what has happened. Through the Federal Reserve system we have provided a free and limitless supply of capital to sector that gets bailed out by the government, and even in some instances REWARDED, when they fail. There is a great quote I have used all over here: "Blaming this crisis on greed, is like blaming plane crashes on gravity" - Thomas E Woods. Cut off the limitless capital and return the risk of failure and your system fixes itself.

[-] 1 points by kwinter (29) from Levittown, PA 13 years ago

Maybe the better term for the problem is "excessive greed", greed that goes beyond what you need and crosses over into hoarding

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

The analogy on gravity is catchy. But I can't agree on much of this. I see it as pro capitalism spin. Sorry. You're a nice guy and a good debater but I just can't agree with your position on greed.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 13 years ago

I am not asking you to agree. Just research, learn. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and in the end we really all do want the same thing.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

I do. I listen to all sides. Don't always agree.