The hyper-rich are leaving the merely rich behind!

Parent Cafe
61

<p>I find it difficult to listen to arguments of people that continually bash the New York Times. I don’t know how you distinguish between reality and spin when you dismiss a paper with a long history of excellent journalism. Sure they make mistakes and they have an obvious point of view in the editorial pages but I think you do us and this country a great disservice when you continually try to villify their articles. A healthy press that questions the status quo is necessary for democracy. It seems those that demonize the NYTimes have lost their ability to see shades of gray and the validity of the other side. The rant of the “liberal media” may work for your party in the short term but it will do long term damage to this democracy.</p>

<p>It seems the Republican’s power base must be insecure or they would not have to spend so much energy obliterating their opponents to insure their own future. Most of the country, myself included prefers a moderate position where energy is spent working towards common goals. But the middle is a tough place to be for either party and for the electorate. It requires thinking about each and every issue rather than the knee jerk reaction of the extremes.</p>

62

<p>Larry Kudlow is one of my least favorite economists. He loves to play fast and loose with statistics.</p>

<p>We don’t have a free market economy and we are not a pure democracy either.</p>

<p>In a pure market economy, capitalism won’t work because you will end up with monopolies everywhere and busts in the economy after booms.
We are also an economy made up of social goods and services that are necessary to the well being of society, but may not be profitable enough for private enterprise.</p>

<p>Kudlow doesn’t really support a free economy either. If Kudlow really wanted a free economy, he wouldn’t support different tax rates for capital gains taxes and income derived from labor. He wouldn’t support the government bailout of Wall Street every time Wall Street hickups. </p>

<p>Under Kudlow’s way, people like Grasso from the NYSE would make multi-millions, not because of their ability, but because they are part of the old boy network. Workers would be eating out of tin-cups with their fingers. Grasso would be taxed less than the workers because part of his income would be from capital gains taxes. There wouldn’t be any inheritance taxes so that relatives of Grasso and his ilk 2 generations down would get the wealth without doing any work whatsoever. People would be getting wealth just because of the families they were born into and not because of anything they did themselves. Yeah…sounds like free market thinking to me.</p>

63

<p>dstark–who p’d in your tin cup?? As a middle class professional most of us have a great life. More cars than I need, two homes, vacations that my parents would never even dream of. A secure retirement with or without SS. I’m too busy working and enjoying life to get all worked up over how much money others have. So long as they didn’t steal it I could care less. Most rich pay lots more in taxes than any of us make in a year.</p>

64

<p>The previous posts were illustrative: They essentially both bash Kudlow (“for playing fast and loose with statistics”) but ignore the point that Kudlow was making - that the NYT was playing fast and loose with the data to make their point. I think it’s time for those who think that what they read in the NYTs is “middle of the road fact” to wake up.</p>

65

<p>lizschup-- amen, thank you.</p>

66

<p>FF,
I didn’t say the New York Times was “middle of the road fact”. I don’t understand the out of hand dismissal of everything the NYT writes. There are valid points worth discussing, but most Republicans seem intent on dismissing everything.</p>

67

<p>Barrons, a couple of things really bother me.</p>

<p>The professional political free-market economists are full of garbage. They say they are against the liberal economists because those economists aren’t in favor of free markets. Well, the Kudlow’s of the world aren’t in favor of free markets either, they just want the tax subsidies and the spending subsidies to go to different people, preferably their friends in the old-boy network. I have a problem when people argue one-way, but really mean something else.</p>

<p>These conservative economists are really creating long-term problems for this country with their nonsense. </p>

<p>Paul Volcker wrote an article in the Washington Post on May 8th and said we can’t continue the same economic policies for long. He said, “I don’t know of any country that has managed to consume and invest 6 percent more than it produces for long. The United States is absorbing about 80% of the net flow of international capital. And at some point, both central banks and private institutions will have their fill of dollars”.</p>

<p>He thinks if we change our policies, we can get out of our mess. We need a strong sense of monetary and fiscal discipline.</p>

<p>I used to be a Republican many years ago and that party used to have as its mantra “fiscal and monetary discipline”. Then they got into power and didn’t walk the walk.</p>

<p>When real estate blows up many of the buyers using these no-down, interest-only loans are going to lose their homes. Then the banks are going to be in trouble. The bankers who rail against welfare for the masses will be the first ones with their hands out wanting a bailout.</p>

68

<p>“most Republicans seem intent on dismissing everything.”</p>

<p>Wow, don’t bash half the nation… </p>

<p>“Most Republicans” are not the religious right, anti-choice fanatics who want to repeal the New Deal… in the same way that most Democrats are not Michael Moore-type whackjobs or 16-year-old mothers of 3 on welfare. </p>

<p>I read the NYT with a grain of salt… just like any other news source. I double the dosage to two grains of salt whenever Pres. Bush’s name is mentioned in an article which really should not be about politics. Unfortunately, news sources are incredibly biased - not just in their editorial pages, but in the information which they choose to NOT present or where they put certain news items. For those of us who peruse multiple news sources, the bias becomes apparent - in all of them. </p>

<p>No need to start trashing half of the country to make your point.</p>

69

<p>Okay, the two most verbal republicans on this site and a few relatives of mine. I didn’t mean to trash half the country. Point taken.</p>

70

<p>Aries,
It is a political issue and Bush’s name does belong in the discussion about the rich getting richer because Bush’s economic policies have an effect on that.</p>

71

<p>

That’s what the words and headlines from the Times would have you believe, but if you look at the actual data, the percentage of the country’s wealth held by the rich has decreased under Bush after escalating exponentially under Clinton. This is the problem that I have with the Times - they have a point to make and if they have data to support it great, if not, they make it anyway.</p>

72

<p>Bush’s policies do help the rich get richer compared to everybody else. The reason the wealthys’ share of the economy decreased was the stock market drop, not because of Bush’s policies.</p>

73

<p>

Which is what Kudlow said! :slight_smile:

</p>

<p>Those of you who are still under the sway of the NYT for your economic and political news, have a look at this excellent site. <a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200506080914.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200506080914.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As an exercise, see if you can debunk the critique, instead of just dissing the source. I may start another thread just to talk about how the NYT completely lost any shred of credibility, and hence my trust, and my subscription, over the last election cycle. It is strictly a source for crossword puzzles and cultural stuff, which I get online. They make more than a few “mistakes,” and much of it has nothing to do with error. It’s clearly deliberate. They have squandered a very fine legacy.</p>

74

<p>Kudlow was right, and he quickly pushed for policies that would fix this situation because we could never let the top 1 percent of the people’s share of the economy ever drop for any length of time. For people that need Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, ____ em.</p>

75

<p>Kudlow hasn’t served in public office since the first Reagan administration. If by “he quickly pushed for policies” you meant he voiced his opinion as a private citizen, well, it’s a free country, right?</p>

76

<p>Absolutely, he can state his ideas.</p>

77

<p>The NYT is the Dan Rather of print media. It is shocking how slanted their stories in this series are. </p>

<p>The facts are clear that the wealthy did much better under Clinton. How can anyone argue this?</p>

<p>And the wealthy do pay more real estate tax, state tax, sales tax, etc. Our economy would be totally stalled without their consumption. What is the point of begrudging people money they have made? The top 1 % paying 34% of fed income tax makes a strong statement that they are not exactly getting away with murder. “Don’t let them sleep?” Oh brother!</p>

<p>Risk taking and hard work still pay off in this Country, that’s what the new uber rich are showing us. Can’t wait to get the kids off to college and take the plunge back into the pursuit of the very much alive American dream.</p>

78

<p>The wealthy did much better under Clinton.
Bush’s policies favor the top 1 percent of the population over the rest of the population.</p>

<p>Both of these sentences can be true.</p>

79

<p>Lizschup: I was not referring specifically to that article. I do find it odd that the title of the article and the context (i.e. in a series of articles with a heavy focus on class issues in daily life, such as a wealthy woman’s marriage to a working-class man) would so heavily criticize the Bush administration - a basically irrelevant topic. It could be a side note, but there is no rational reason for it to dominate the article. I have no problem with the NYT or any other news source doing that - I just don’t think they should do so under the guise of an otherwise fascinating discussion of class issues. If that is their goal, the NYT could quite easily do a chapter in their series on the effects of tax cuts. </p>

<p>Yes, the wealthy do pay more property tax, as it is calculated either per square foot of home space or per thousand dollars in value. Often, the wealthy live in residential towns, which have higher property taxes than towns with a commercial base. The upper-middle class, which many would consider to be “wealthy,” get hit very hard with AMT. Granted, we would all rather be wealthy and paying those taxes than poor - but that is no reason to begrudge others what they have.</p>

80

<p>Under Bush, the income tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts, dividend tax cuts, inheritence tax cuts, and spending increases have benefitted those at the top more than those anywhere else in the income and wealth spectrum. That is just a fact.</p>

<p>We have deficit problems in trade and the budget. We have a Social Security problem, a savings problem, Medicare problem, Medicaid problem and a wealth and income distribution problem. These problems if left unchecked will wreck havoc on the economy.</p>

<p>I don’t want to speak for people like Paul Volcker, but a small rise in taxes and a cut in spending now (while we are growing above trend) can reduce future problems and keep us on track.</p>

<p>Then the question becomes whose taxes are we going to raise and whose spending are we going to cut?</p>

<p>My preference is to cut spending and raise taxes for those at the top. </p>

<p>My preference is too cut spending by getting rid of $2.5 million subsidies for the rice farmers in Northern California, and other subsidies to people that are just getting rich on the subsidies.</p>

<p>We need to raise interest rates to increase savings, stop conspicuous consumption, and slow down rampant speculation in real estate and commodities.</p>

<p>We are going to have to raise taxes somewhere to cut the budget and trade deficits. I prefer to raise taxes slightly and start at the top of the income chain and work down.</p>

<p>We can do those things now or we can wait until things really become a mess and we have to really raise taxes. </p>

<p>One of Bush’s arguments for the tax cuts was the economy was sputtering and needed help (He was right).</p>

<p>Now the economy isn’t sputtering. There is rampant speculation in parts of the economy. We are running deficits at a time when the country is at its most productive and when we should be running surpluses to save for the day when the baby boomers age.</p>

<p>Boy, our kids are going to be incredibly mad at us some day.</p>