Wolfman Report: GIVE ME YOUR TIRED AND YOUR POOR; WARNING! IF YOU ARE RICH, STAY AWAY

It isn't about handouts. It about having the opportunity to grow the middle class. If a few at the top keep taking a larger percentage of the wealth, 98% of us will be serfs soon. Wealth is finite. The bigger percentage the top gets the less there is for the rest of us. Get the concept? The more money you have the more power you have to get more money and power. It is already happening. Better get informed, because the bigger the wealth gap the more restive the natives become.

Here's a dumbass idea...

Make everyone pay 3% more and tell them to quit their bitching...

I am thinking of getting a second job to pay for the first jobs taxes and health care coverage for my family. The wife make the money to live with!

Now that's REAL charity Nel. Merry Christmas!

Just wondering what the hell your biblical quotes have to do with stealing from one group and giving it to another? Did Jesus ever justify stealing? I don't think so...

Redistribution of wealth is nothing more than government sanctioned stealing at the point of a gun. Taking away the fruits of one man's labors and giving it to anyone else cannot be looked at as anything but stealing.

When I choose to give to another, that is charity.

King Dave,

The quotes refer to giving of ONESELF not having someone else forcing you to give. How do you feel knowing that I am taking your money before you even get paid, since Social Security is currently using the taxes paid by those working to pay for people getting benefits, like myself. How does it feel knowing that the government is stealing from you to pay me for being disabled? Now, remember this part of an old saying: "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" that is what the government is doing now.

sjayne2355 #4.1 Amen to that.

tomwcraig #4.2 And amen to that.

That only applies if you are Christian.

tomwcraig, great post. I am in the same situation and have had many arguments on the vine with people that think it's perfectly acceptable to take from others. Funny thing is, it's NOT okay to take if you are disabled, only if you choose to live off others.

I worked for nearly 54 years, and since I had no dependants, I paid through the nose with all kinds of taxes, leaving me barely enough to survive on. Never asked for or took help till I literally NOT work anymore. I live on less than $700.00 a month. BUT.............everything I own is paid for, most of it was bought used or given to me used. Never owned a house because I couldn't afford it, don't have a car now because I can't afford one. I know how to shop cheap and eat good. I don't have the best of anything, and don't need it. What I do have is contentment.

It is not the job of "the rich" to take care of me. I don't even look to better off family members to take care of me, and they respect me for that. I think the people that do want to strip "the rich" of what they have are greedy and jealous. Those people with money for the most part EARNED it, and most of them do a hell of a job donating to charities.

I do apologize if this sounds like I'm rambling on, but had to take extra pain meds to even get up today.

Tom,

You should push your representive to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, and see how far you get.

The rich come to this country from other countries because our individual taxes are actually less than most other industrialized countries in the world.

If taxes are so great here, why are corporations outsourcing and moving?

Just asking.

Terry,

What I'm pushing is that after two years when the 2% reduction in Social Security expires, we are allowed to direct that money into a private account, guaranteed by the government to increase in value at the rate of inflation plus 1%. Could you get behind that idea?

As to Medicare, I will never collect it, but will pay for it for the rest of my life. (Upon retirement, we are moving to Italy, so no Medicare for us, but I am sure they will deduct taxes from our Social Security checks)

Rich people come to America because of the tax advantages, but if they have income, they still pay taxes. Additionally, they pay taxes to the countries they have come from as well in some cases.

So, what they find here is only a lighter hand in their pockets then what they had at home...

Terry, some of them have beeb given tax incentives to come here, and some of them came at a time when they were not being gouged for so much. This government, mainly the libs, want to take from them and give to those that have no desire to do for themselves.

Think of it like this: You win a huge jackpot in the lottery. All of a sudden, you have "friends" and "family" coming out of the woodwork with their hands out. Make no mistake, if you don't "share" with them, you are selfish, greedy, and a republican.

I don't blame them for taking off, I would too.

Terry,

Do you realize there are SEVERAL HUGE PROBLEMS with Social Security?

1) The Treasury Bonds/Bills that Social Security is supposedly invested in are not guaranteed and DO NOT HAVE TO BE PAID BACK BY THE GOVERNMENT!

2) Despite each of us supposedly having our own account, we have to have approval before we can access that money.

3) The process for approval can take up to FOUR MONTHS.

4) The money being doled out to Social Security receipients is taken from the taxes that are currently being paid in by those not currently receiving said money.

This all adds up to a system that is inefficient, broke, and needs to be privatized. If you have your own personal account, you should be able to access it whenever you need it. You shouldn't have to wait 4 months to get it, if you are approved. You shouldn't have to have approval of some bureaucrat that just sits around doing their best to deny people.

My wife and I have had to lean heavily on our families; because 1) I haven't been able to find a job, so I remain on Social Security disability and 2) my wife is no longer able to work because she is having seizures. This means that we have to pay all our bills, rent, etc. on just my disability. We're trying to get her on Social Security disability and trying to find out what is causing the seizures. We know Epilepsy runs in her family, and that Epilepsy is an automatic qualifier for Social Security disability. The problem is that we have her application in to Social Security, and she just had an EEG done.

I want off of Disability. I would like to make enough so my wife won't need to be on disability either. However, the sad reality is that there is no way for my wife and I to survive without it.

I just read all of these posts, above, and the questions and quandries are just multiplied. I get so Po'd because we all know the decent thing to do. I really just wonder, how much money do you have to amass before you do the right thing without getting paid to do it? What price is too high to feed children? What price is too high to give men and women (and children) shelter. It's a little backwards that our gov't has to give kickbacks, to get those that have it all (gold plated apartments and @!$%#) to give a penance to the truly lacking. Most of these people would never ask for charity if their lives depended on it--and do not. Then there are those that are bottom feeders. I truly could not live with myself if I was that rich and deny a child a meal, clothing, and an education.

I seriously don't get how the uber rich people continue to get the poor to defend them and their lifestyles. It's abuse of power--you get the crumbs we feed you...education is the key.

We, as a nation need to start to realize it.

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor

King Dave -

Aww. Ain't that sweet. You're feeling all religious right before Christmas.

Now...can you show us the passage in the bible where it says that we're supposed to contribute to the poor via the federal government?

That's what floors me about liberals. They claim to be champions of the little guy, yet can't seem to match conservatives when it comes to charitable contributions and they rail against faith based charities who do the most good.

Four months for approval? Dude, you're LUCKY! Here in Oregon I know people who have been waiting years for their disability. Most of them have stacks of documentation but it's an arbitrary process here and the SSD doctors have a very bad habit of not agreeing with specialists and primary care physicians who know their patients well. That can introduce an entirely new problem. How many of you are aware that you can lose all the money you've paid into the system if you don't collect in time? I found out the hard way when my claim fell between the cracks. What would have been $1300 a month became about $400. I had to drop the process when I lost my insurance and the relationship with my doctor because of it. If not for a small family trust I would have resorted to robbing Wells Fargo banks years ago. They administor the trust and are the brilliant ones who neglected to pay the insurance premium as obligated under the trust agreement. Yes, I'm aware I can sue but they will literally keep me in court until I die because they're the ones with the money. I'm constantly being threatened with what little income I have, and after ten years it's become rather redundant. I've finally reached the end of my patience (I have a very long fuse) and after the holidays I intend to take my case to my state's division of insurance and finance. The point is, we all have some sort of recourse whether we realise it or not. If you don't like what your elected representatives are doing get all your Facebook pals together for a mass emailing. That will get attention in a big way. Talk to your commissioners or whoever. Don't be afraid to speak up and then to defend your words if you're challenged. We can all moan, groan, whine and complain about how things are but it's just lip service until we take action.

If Social Security is so bad, then get rid of it!

Go back to the days before Social Security existed, and let's see how much you like that.

As far as collecting disability payments go, the system needs does need improvement. The system does need to be set up to discourage those who can work from scamming the system and getting money they don't deserve.

Go back to the days before Social Security existed, and let's see how much you like that.

Gladly! SS can send back everything I paid in, allow me to invest it privately, not take any more out and in return, they don't have to pay me a dime when I'm old.

I guarantee you, I will have a much higher standard of living without them.

As far as collecting disability payments go, the system needs does need improvement.

The work that could should done is separate it out from SS, unfortunately we cannot trust the government to have money paid into a fund and them not rob it blind, fine example SS.

Terry, the problem is that the system is set up to encourage scamming the system. Only those that are interested in scamming the system can understand the rules. It's like with anything else, the more complicated the easier it is to commit fraud.

heather,

I recently moved back to Oregon. To let you know more, I lived in PA until 2005 when I moved to Oregon to marry my wife. I was already receiving disability when I moved here; but was attending an online school. My wife and I returned to PA in 2007 to aid my parents with the transition from their old office to their new office on my family's dairy farm. This past year, my wife started having seizures; so we moved back so she could see the doctor familiar with her old back injury (depolarization of the spine). We thought that stress and her back were causing the seizures. However, the seizures have been getting worse, and it looks like the seizures are causing her old back injury to resurface. Now, we are waiting on her EEG results to see if it is Epilepsy or not. The 4 months was a quote from the letter the Salem SSA office had sent us. I did not know their past history of dragging their feet.

#1 it is not a sin to be rich. Yes what Jesus said was true, that it would be difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, but not impossible.

#2 what Jesus said about giving what you have to the poor he meant willingly, not by force of any government. Most Christians give 10% of their income to tithing which goes to help the poor through our church and therefore we do give to the poor. We just don't give it to the government to distribute.

The pure definition of charity is to give without worrying about getting anything in return or concern about where it goes. Why does it matter whether it goes to the government or to the church, if people are being helped? The same people who get government assistance and visit the soup kitchens take as much as they want and they both foster an image of entitlement. I guess people just get upset that they have their money taken by the government rather than floating in their wallet so they can decide to give 10% rather than 30%.

Your comment makes sense to me. I found out that there are other ways to fund your retirement other than social security.

Wolf -

I pulled out a compound interest calculator and was shocked at what the difference would be.

A 25 year old making $70,000 a year pays 6.5% of his check to the feds for SS. $4,550 a year.

If he had that $4,550 to invest in his own retirement, retired at age 65, never got a raise through his entire working career and only made 5% interest on his investment, it would be worth 803,849.28 upon retirement.

Lets see SS match that.

A 25 year old making $70,000 a year pays 6.5% of his check to the feds for SS. $4,550 a year.

If he had that $4,550 to invest in his own retirement, retired at age 65, never got a raise through his entire working career and only made 5% interest on his investment, it would be worth 803,849.28 upon retirement.

Lets see SS match that.

Exactly! Social Security is a joke. Most retired people can't live on social security alone. And it's running out of money, FAST! By the time I retire, there won't be any money left in social security.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/18/news/economy/sloan_socialsecurity.fortune/index.htm

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/03/30/social_security_is_running_out_of_money_98399.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051200252.html

Look at what life was like for most of the elderly before Social Security. Large portions of the elderly were reduced to begging on the streets when they lost their homes and had no income or pensions. Corporations raided pension funds, then went bankrupt leaving the elderly no pensions. Banks collapsed all the time taking peoples savings with them.

How well have most people's personal investments done in the last few years? How many of their mortgages are underwater.

Social Security was never supposed to be the sole support for the retired, just part of the support.

A disabled person who was injured early in their life wouldn't have ANY savings to support themselves with. Are they supposed to beg on the streets like they did in the good old days?

The mortgage collapse isn't even over yet, there's still over a Trillion dollars worth of collapse left out there.

How well have most people's personal investments done in the last few years?

Considering the DOW hit a record high in 2007, has rebounded from less than 7,000 to over 11,000 in the last 12 months and gold has quadrupled in the last decade, I'd say pretty good.

How many of their mortgages are underwater.

How many of those people bought McMansions they couldn't afford, didn't read the fine print on their mortgage and figured they'd worry about their APR down the road?

A disabled person who was injured early in their life wouldn't have ANY savings to support themselves with. Are they supposed to beg on the streets like they did in the good old days?

See? This is what pisses me off to no end. I get so sick of people acting like the disabled are helpless. I'm one of those "helpless disabled people", sunshine. Know what I do? I work a work-from-home job on straight commission. I poured 70-80 hours a week into building my pipeline early on and because of this, I have a steady client base and a phenomenal income. Its called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you know SSI actually has a freakin' marketing department? I get a call from them at least once every couple of months, telling me I qualify for SSI and 'Kevin' tells me all about how great my life would be if I got on SSI. The conversations usually go like this:

Kevin: Hi Patricia. Kevin from SSI. at (address).

Me: Hi Kevin.

Kevin: I was just calling to tell you that our records indicate that you qualify for SSI. I was wondering if you would like us to send you the documentation to take advantage of this benefit that you are entitled to.

Me: Why would I want to do that, Kevin.

Kevin: Well, our records indicate you are currently employed by (name of company). If you were to take advantage of the benefits rightly do to you, would would no longer have to worry about commuting long distances.

Me: Kevin? I work from home. My commute is 30 feet.

Kevin: Well, accepting SSI would provide you with income while you enjoyed a better work/life balance and do the things you enjoy doing.

Me: Hmmm. OK. How much income?

Kevin: $X,XXX per month!

Me: Kevin...I currently make $XX,XXX per month and don't have to leave my house.

Kevin: Well, another benefit to...

Me: (This is where I usually cut him off)....Kevin? You called me two months ago with this same spiel.

Kevin: Oh. I did?

Do you really think this is the way the system should operate? Honestly? You find nothing corrupt about this? You find nothing corrupt about the people who fall for Kevin's line of crap? Our federal government is actually RECRUITING people for SSI! And there is something very, very wrong with that.

Pat,

Obviously YOU don't need SSI. But contrary to what you seem to think, your disability level, experience, and skill level are not universal. The goal of the disabilty payments should be to make the disabled person as independent as possible, until they are able to do without any help (If possible.). I DO NOT ASSUME that all the disabled are helpless, I also DO NOT ASSUME that all the disabled are capable of complete independence either. It is arrogant to assume either thing, each case needs to be judged on it's own merits.

There are some people on this thread who are complaining that getting disability payments is too difficult, while there are others (Such as yourself.) who are saying that the disabled don't need anything.

As far as the so-called SSI Marketing Department, these are called Outreach Programs. Granted, they are run by a bureaucracy and could certainly be improved, but they are designed to reach those who don't know that help is available. Many disabled peopled become depressed and lose hope for any sort of normal life because they don't realize that help is available. Your answer seems to be screw'em, I didn't need any help.

If I followed your logic I would have to say "Why should businesses or public buildings have handicapped parking?", "There's no need for handicapped access, because the disabled are able overcome these barriers on their own."

You seem like you have a chip on your shoulder, and would possibly make a nasty comment to someone who held a door open for you. I had someone do that once, and he had the nerve to be offended when I closed the door in his face. BTW, I hold doors open for everybody without consideration of their physical condition.

The reason we have a country and aren't just a bunch of people living in the same area, is because together we can help each other for the good of the whole group. It is because of our basic humanity that we help the weakest members of the group rather than kick them out to be eaten by lions. It is certainly better to err on the side of charity than to have a calloused heart. Can things be improved? Of course they can, and we should do what we can to make things work as efficiently as possible.

I DO NOT ASSUME

You seem like you have a chip on your shoulder, and would possibly make a nasty comment to someone who held a door open for you.

So much for you not being one to 'assume' anything, eh?

tomwcraig- Welcome home! From the sound of it you and you're wife are going to be luckier than most getting her SSD. More than likely it has to do with a very long and continuous medical history. I have MCS/Fibromyalgia, which leaves me basically allergic to every petroleum-related product known to man, as well as most other chemicals. For years Fibromyalgia was thought to be a mental-health issue when it's actually an immune disorder. The symptoms of MCS can be random and hard to diagnose by the average physician. It took two years and countless MRI's and Cat-scans before I was referred to an osteopath specialising in environmental illness. It's difficult for me to get SSD because of the issues I mentioned above, as well as the relative obscurity of MCS and the government's general unwillingness to admit it exists. That's a whole other discussion by itself because there are very real illnesses out there that Uncle Sam just won't admit to.

David Boddie said:

"The pure definition of charity is to give without worrying about getting anything in return or concern about where it goes. Why does it matter whether it goes to the government or to the church, if people are being helped? The same people who get government assistance and visit the soup kitchens take as much as they want and they both foster an image of entitlement. I guess people just get upset that they have their money taken by the government rather than floating in their wallet so they can decide to give 10% rather than 30%."

David - Charity is FREELY given from the heart, not TAKEN by a government. As far as the money helping poor people, I very much disagree that it's the same whether it's from my church or the government. My church spends very little of the money I give for administration and nearly all of the money goes DIRECTLY to the poor. We feed them with a food bank, take groups to their houses and fix them up, pay their utility bills, etc.... On the other hand, very little of the money that the government TAKES from us actually goes to the poor. Most of it goes to line the pockets of rich politicians and pay layer upon layer of bureocracy and then a small portion of it actually goes to the poor. There is a HUGE difference between giving to a charity and having the government take it.

What is wrong with people CHOOSING how much they can afford to give? Who are you to say who can afford more or less? Do you know all of their financial needs? Do you know their circumstances? Or are you just jealous that someone has more money than you? It's MY MONEY, why shouldn't I have the CHOICE of how I give it to the poor? 10% is what is required by God, but it is by no means the limit. I belong to a church with 700 members, many of them very well off, and they give way more than 10% to the church. And they give it even AFTER they have paid their FAIR SHARE to the government.

Deb and Pat - great points!!

social security questions answered:

http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/ff/faq/administrative.html

Pat,

I DO NOT ASSUME

You seem like you have a chip on your shoulder, and would possibly make a nasty comment to someone who held a door open for you.

So much for you not being one to 'assume' anything, eh?

I ASSUMED nothing by my statement, I made an OBSERVATION based on your posts. It would appear that I touched a nerve (Or possibly a chip?), and based on your response it looks like it was an insightful observation.

, I made an OBSERVATION based on your posts

Ummm...Terry? Sweetheart? Snookums? Tell me....how exactly, does one 'observe' anything from black typing on a blog? I mean, you could observe the font. The size of the font. The background color. The little icons up there above on the tool bar. But I'm curious to hear how you 'observe' another individual.

You do know the difference 'observe' and 'assume'..right?

How about your words? You do know what words are, don't you? You do use them in your posts, don't you? Are you just posting random collections of letters?

Or are you saying that your words mean nothing more than the number of pixels they use?

I didn't ASSUME what you wrote, I OBSERVED what you wrote.

BTW, don't call me little endearing names. I'm none of these things to you, Sweetcheeks.

I didn't ASSUME what you wrote, I OBSERVED what you wrote.

Dearheart. When you ascribe certain personality traits to someone from their writing, you are assuming things about that person. When you look at the font those words are typed in, you are observing. Get out a dictionary sometime, K?

Here. Let me help you. I'm feeling charitable this Christmas seasson.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assume

Assume

–verb (used with object)

1. to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/observe

Observe

–verb (used with object)
1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.

Now that we've had our elementary school reading lesson for the day, would you care to show the author of this article a little respect and get back on topic?

It's not Assuming, it's Extrapolation from your very own words.

And if you actually read the post, I said: "You seem like you have a chip on your shoulder, and would possibly make a nasty comment to someone who held a door open for you."

I didn't assume anything, I merely posed a possible explanation for your response to my earlier post.

And I did notice that while you attacked me, you didn't actually deny that that would be your normal response to any assistance offered.

Anyway, this has gone off topic too much and I have nothing further to say to you on this subject.

David - Charity is FREELY given from the heart, not TAKEN by a government. As far as the money helping poor people, I very much disagree that it's the same whether it's from my church or the government. My church spends very little of the money I give for administration and nearly all of the money goes DIRECTLY to the poor. We feed them with a food bank, take groups to their houses and fix them up, pay their utility bills, etc.... On the other hand, very little of the money that the government TAKES from us actually goes to the poor. Most of it goes to line the pockets of rich politicians and pay layer upon layer of bureocracy and then a small portion of it actually goes to the poor. There is a HUGE difference between giving to a charity and having the government take it.

Really? Not a single drop of corruption in your church? None of your charity and tithing to the church goes to minister salaries, church upkeep and expenses? Your church does everything for free, passing all that money to the poor. I find that hard to believe. Growing up Baptist, I have a tendency to believe that there are many hands in that pot. I look at all the church rainments these days and wonder exactly who's really paying for what. In this instance I can honestly say that the government corruption and organized religions aren't much different. Everyone's got their hands in the lock box.

And I find it interesting that the poor that come to a church like yours are just poor people, but the people on government assistance are considered freeloaders. Just because they go to your church doesn't make them any different than the poor on the street.

What is wrong with people CHOOSING how much they can afford to give?

Nothing. I find it interesting that people have differing opinions when their 3% goes to the government rather than their church. I'm sorry, just because someone claims a religions affiliation does not make them pure. I've seen too many churches ruined by supposedly pious members of the leadership. Not any different than a government official.

Of course, I guess you could always decide to give 1% to the church rather than 3% or higher. I guess the government requiring you to pay your taxes is a big soft spot for people. I find it ironic that the people who are really creating a skink about tax increases are people who make my yearly salary in a day. They can live incredibly well for the rest of their lives and not worry about taxes. But somehow 3% is soo much too much... Go figure.

Who are you to say who can afford more or less?

Hmmm... well, it seems that they can decide that I should pay more and not them. Turnabout is fair play, I say. They can pay millions to lobbiests to get MY Congressman to vote how they want. What gives them that right? Oh, wait... They do.

Do you know all of their financial needs?

Millionaires don't need all their money to survive. Simple accounting. If they can live a comfortable living, they deserve to give back.

Do you know their circumstances?

Not really. I'm making the same assumptions that some rich guy is making about me being lazy because I'm not a millionaire too.

Or are you just jealous that someone has more money than you?

Nope. I'm happy making what I make. My goal in life is to live with bills paid and no worries. So far, I've achieved that with glowing success. And I make pitiful wages.

It's MY MONEY, why shouldn't I have the CHOICE of how I give it to the poor? 10% is what is required by God, but it is by no means the limit. I belong to a church with 700 members, many of them very well off, and they give way more than 10% to the church. And they give it even AFTER they have paid their FAIR SHARE to the government.

You still don't get it, do you? I'm not trying to take your money from you. You can have and keep all you like. I really don't care. What I do care about is all the bitching. It's unbecoming of people, regardless of faith.

I'm going to assume you're either Christian, given your reference to God and church.

Jesus tried to teach people not to worry about worldly things. We should all learn to live simply, and pay the rest of our gains down the river. "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto God what is God's" and the like. I'm not trying to say you should give more to the government over charity. What's I'm saying is IT SHOULD NOT MATTER WHERE THE MONEY GOES. If you'res successful and the money (that is taken or given) is helping society, then there should be no problems, you shouldn't worry. If you have a problem with how the government spends the money, then you need to make that known.

But people are too worried about MY MONEY. "They're taking my money," they say. Well, they're not taking ALL your money. Sure, you might be able to send your kids to a slightly better college, or get a slightly bigger house or a slightly better car. But do you really need any of that? I'm not making that choice for you.

But, if you're so worried about YOUR MONEY going to the government, then I think you've missed a lesson or two from your church.

I've heard it was even higher than that. I heard on TV recently the wealthiest 1% of the population holds 90% of the wealth. But either way (75% or 90%) that needs to get fixed.

And it would have if we just let capitalism do its thing. But instead, we've now "bailed out" all these rich idiots when they messed up and should have been kicked to the curb. Thus, helping them keep their fortunes and prohibiting anyone else from taking a share of the pie.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=36 US Poverty 1961-2009: The best numbers were during the 1960s, when JFK and LBJ were presidents. But it didn’t last.

The rate jumped in Nixon’s first term, and was up and down at various points through 1980 then really spike dramatically upward in the early Reagan years. It got better in the second Reagan term and the first Bush Sr, but was pretty weak and then spiked again until Clinton became president. The poverty rate was down in his term. It went up under Bush II with just a couple weak down ticks, then went up and up into Obama’s first year. All those trade agreements are still in place and so are Bush tax cuts. We have never been able to return to the rates enjoyed under Kennedy and Johnson.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220 Income Gap: Top one percent income went up by 281 percent. The “income gap” tripled between the top earners and the bottom in just 30 years.

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026 The Great Divergence: Scroll down to see chart 1917-2008. The “Great Compression” of the income gap occurred during a period of general prosperity, 1941-1979. Note the huge DISPARITY both before, during The Depression, and after, beginning with Reagan..and the Great Divergence.

Berie Madoff did a redistribution of his own. He scammed something like 60% of the inherited wealth in this country.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

A statistical look at tax rates and wealth in this country.

Also Madoff is an @!$%# and I hope he and those like him rot in hell

Baron...

That report is skewed; also based on numbers they say they got from 2004. Here's another report from this year, based on data from 2009:

Who Pays Taxes?

Focusing on income taxes when you discuss Americans' tax burden ignores the fact that most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income tax. The truth is that only a very small percentage of Americans pay no federal taxes—and most of those folks are paying at least some state taxes.

When you're talking about tax "fairness," there are really only two stats that matter: the percentage of total taxes that each income group pays, and the percentage of total income that group receives.

Scroll down and check out the chart titled, "Share of Total by Taxes Paid by Each Income Group Similar to Their Shares of Income in 2009."

That chart show that the highest 1% pay the highest percentage in taxes. It is not proportional to the amount of the nation's wealth they control. Good post, I would have prefered more data though. Do you have a link to more recent statistical data that indicates the percentage of the nation's taxes paid by the wealthiest 1%?

Nick, they still have to file or they get no refund or credit. And they pay sales, property, license fees, and all the rest.

Sorry, I didn't get your reply.

The paperwork and the hassle are the same joy for all of us!

The United States did not have personal income taxes or Social Security taxes until 1913 for the income tax and 1932 for Social Security. The USA got along fine on just tariffs, sales taxes, and excise taxes until those two years. And, guess what, we now are wondering why we now have a war between the poor and the rich. It's because those two things laid the foundation for today's economic climate.

Thinksbeforejudging,

We moved towards Socialism before the Predatory Capitalism started. Predatory Capitalism is the reaction towards government stepping in and telling people that they have to give their money to others without any choice. Essentially it is the lack of responsibility of people in government that has caused this lack of responsibility by big business. When people in power forget they are role models for those not in power, their actions spread to all sectors of the population. Look at Germany in the 1920s through 1945. Look at the Soviet Union. Look at the Roman Empire. In all of these, the people in government were corrupt and caused their corrupt behavior to spread. And, in many cases, their governments collapsed or were destroyed because of their own greed and arrogance, not to mention the societal collapse that occurred at the same time.

Nope, complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism never had any goal except to make the people who owned the businesses involved as rich as possible.

Morality, ethics, conscience, humanity, or patriotism have NEVER had anything to do with Capitalism. The ONLY goal of Capitalism is to make more money for the business.

Capitalism never had any goal except to make the people who owned the businesses involved as rich as possible

How do you suppose it came to be that those people were able to build a business from ground zero to begin with?

Rich parents who co-signed for loans?

So in your world, every single business that ever got started was a result of 'rich parents'.

OK. Lets run with that. Wal-Mart started as a mom & pop shop. Who co-signed their loan?

Bill Gates started Microsoft in his garage.

Schneider Trucking...the largest trucking company in the US, was started when Al Schneider sold the family car and purchased his first truck.

Need more examples? Those three are off the top of my head.

Get a clue, Terry.

At some point, the people you listed in your examples needed real capital. And that stuff comes from bank loans.

At some point, the people you listed in your examples needed real capital. And that stuff comes from bank loans

Terry claimed it came from rich parents co-signing. I wish you guys would make up your minds.

Terry claimed it came from rich parents co-signing. I wish you guys would make up your minds.

That's the problem with assumption. You realize that we're not all alike, and that we don't follow a goose-step line.

Then I fail to see what your contribution added to the conversation as I was challenging his assertation that all business owners got their start from rich parents co-signing. I never denied that loans themselves, weren't involved.

David,

Reread Pat's and Terry's posts in this section. If you take a step back and observe what has been said, you will see that Terry postulated that only children of rich parents got loans to start businesses and Pat was challenging that postulation. In truth, people used to be able to get loans easily; because we didn't have all the government regulations to determine if someone was "capable" of paying back the loan. FICO and bank mergers really have damaged a person's ability to get loans and develop a proper personal history. Loans used to be given based on how well the bank managers knew the person asking for the loan, not on how financially sound they look on paper.

I never said ALL.

You asked an absurd question in 8.9, and I gave it the answer it deserved.

The real answer is, that there is no single answer to such a silly question. There are a multitude of ways that people start businesses, and it is ridiculous to expect anyone to list them all.

And I'm sure that some people who started businesses got the money by having rich parents co-sign for loans or they even gave them the money outright.

And it still doesn't change the fact that Capitalism has never had any goal except to make the people who own the businesses involved as rich as possible. It really doesn't matter how they started their business anyway. The goals of Capitalism are not always compatible with the goals of Democracy, there has to be limits on Capitalism just like there are limits on Democracy.

You asked an absurd question in 8.9, and I gave it the answer it deserved.

What's absurd about asking you how people build businesses from ground zero if not through capitalism?

There are a multitude of ways that people start businesses

And all of them are rooted within a free market, capitalistic society, no?

And it still doesn't change the fact that Capitalism has never had any goal except to make the people who own the businesses involved as rich as possible

No @!$%#, sherlock. You believe we should punish success, instead?

there has to be limits on Capitalism

Name one industry...just one...that doesn't have regulations.

You know what I generally find? Those who rail against capitalism are generally the ones who lack the aptitute or drive to become successful on their own merit and they resent the ones who do.

Everyone pays taxes. Even illegals (sales tax and etc). Nobody likes doing it. Just a part of life. As for people who pay more taxes because of what bracket they are in, oh well. I would much rather have a good income and pay more in taxes than be someone who has a low-income and pays no taxes. There is a huge difference in lifestyles regardless.

Nick,

Trust me, I agree. I make a good living and do not regret that I have to pay the taxes so my daughter can attend a great school. It is just the thought of having something you'll never get! LOL!

Very true.

My parents make 100K in income, and pay less than 5K in taxes a year when it comes down to brass tacks. Yes, the government takes almost 10% of that in taxes, but they get 5K back each year after they do their various deductions for things like health care.

Are you kidding me? That is COMPLETELY FALSE. The federal income tax for the tax bracket between $68,000-$137,000 is 25% alone, that doesn't include state income tax (which can be anything from 0% up to around 9% for a couple making $100,000). Even if they are taking deductions, they'll still be paying around 22%.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

10% income tax on $100,000/yr income is completely false. You have to go all the way back to 1914 and 1915 to see an income tax down near 10% for a couple making $100,000/yr.

Now, if they can find a way to do that without taking a whole bunch of deductions (they take only about 6), anyone can figure out how to do that.

What state do they live in? They better hope and pray they don't get audited. Just because they are getting away with it doesn't mean what they are doing is legal. By law they are supposed to be paying a lot more. So regardless of whether they "found a way" to pay only 5~10%. WHEN (not if) they get caught they will be fined and probably have to serve prison time.

Your parents are SUPPOSED to be paying 25% federal and whatever state income tax on their money. If they aren't, they are criminals and if they ever get audited, you'll be visiting them in prison. Trust me, they are on a very slippery slope if they are indeed trying to beat the system and only pay 5-10%. Like I said, the federal income tax hasn't been 10% for $100K since 1916.

And furthermore, people like your parents (if they really are only paying 5%) are part of the problem. Because they are cheating the system, the feds have to raise the tax rates even more to get the money they need to run the country. Honestly law abiding citizens then get the shaft.

Your parents cheating the system is part of the reason I had to pay 50% (33% Fed, 10% state, 7% FICA) in income tax last year. Please tell us their names so I can report them to the IRS and start fixing what is wrong with this country!

wolf, check out this video, it is very interesting.

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

You might be able to use it for a seed.

It's really ironic that psycho offers a video where a vet is warning about wedge issues distracting the public while greedy bastards are "robbing us blind." Hello....

American Idle, being in a combat zone, and watching things unfold from an outsider`s perspective, or stationed in another country, and watching the same thing, sharpens your perspective on bull @!$%# being spread around here at home. I do not trust the government, from the president on down. Both D and R.

I hope that you are wrong, but your logic is right on. You would not believe the grief I get from people on Newsvine from the use of marxist, or communist. I believe in being bluntly honest.

And where are the American economic elite going? Seriously, where?

Rainbow, not too many places they'd get a deal like this....

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

Jan 29, 2009 ... That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the ... or 63% of all their income, in net capital gains. ... of $153542 or more--now pay a higher effective tax rate than the top 400. ...
www.forbes.com/.../irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html -

All you have to do is study what happened economically to every country that had a Marxist/Communist take over at one time or another. The Soviet Union's economy sank so low that they had bread lines made with wheat imported from the USA despite having a much larger agricultural area. They, also, had no hard currency so they had constant hyperinflation. Similar things happened to China during the 1960s, Cuba, North Korea, and just about every other Communist nation in history.

All of them suffered from one thing, a person or persons believing they knew how to better spend other people's money than the people they took the money from. Plus, they knew the golden rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules." Which is why Communism tends to put the people's money in the hands of a small cadre of people, which leads to the situations listed above. They don't care about the people, they only care about themselves and their power.

I have one question. Why did the people vote for communist for president? Did people forget the lessons of the cold war. I wish someone would explain it to me.

Obama is a communist? Unbelievable. You sure could have fooled me. I think he's a moderate republican.

A world where people are paid at LEAST a living wage for their labors!

There is that phrase again but no one will tell what amount is considered a living wage.

the amount that I consider a 'living wage' is enough to have a decent house, a decent vehicle enough food on the table and all other basic necessities.... that amount would be different depending upon the prices of things where you live.

the amount that I consider a 'living wage' is enough to have a decent house,

So enough to rent an apartment is out? Apartments are 'substandard' now?

a decent vehicle

No more public transportation? What's a "decent vehicle"? A mechanically sound 1990 Ford pick up? Or a 2007 Toyota Corolla? Or a 2008 Lexus?

enough food on the table

"Enough" is??? How much? Are hot dogs and Mac & Cheese acceptable?

and all other basic necessities....

Which includes what?

That is what happens when people are presented with real reality, Wolf. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the communists became social justice democrats. Just because the communists do not use guns to promote their agenda, does not mean that they are no communists anymore, just kinder and gentler. Also more bull@!$%# from them. And if I am an idiot, then so be it, my thoughts are mine, not to be altered.

I am a product of the cold war, went to Vietnam and Germany, and a duck is still a duck. That is reality. To speak otherwise is selling yourself, and the country out. The time will come when the true nature of Obama`s regime is fully exposed. Until then, I will keep wearing my tin foil cap, and pick up @!$%# with a pooper scooper, not the clean end of a turd. LOL.

Happy new year Wolf.

I`m hoping that the new congress to does the right thing. If they do not, there will be another revolution of the violent type. Hope to God the republicans can stop the socialization of the country by the the socialist democrtic party (communists).

gee, folks, ever try to back up anything you say with FACTS?

Rutgers University studies public versus private employee salaries -This has interesting info about public workers in New Jersey, now under in the cross hairs of Gov. Christie
Government pay vs. private wages - Info re both federal and state of Minnesota
Are Federal Workers Overpaid? - fact checking claims on both sides of the debate

It's a complicated issue, but throwing around random allegations doesn't help matters.

KJMGIRL - so true. The growth of public sector unions is large and scary problem that many do not notice. I have friends on a couple different city councils who are dealing with unbelievable union issues. One of the cities budgets is 65% controlled by unions via contracts the prior city council put in place. They do things like tell the city council to lay off non-union city employees before giving up their guaranteed raises, which aren't even based on performance.

The public sector unions use threats in two ways. They threaten politicians with re-election support to vote for tax increases. Then when the increases pass and they know the city, state, etc... will be getting more revenue, they threaten the politicians with re-election support in exchange for allocating some of that new tax revenue towards their cause in the form of contracted raises, COLA's, and pension plans. Its a complete scheme that is increasing like wild flower through city, state, and the federal government. Until we get politicians with the guts to out the union tactics and risk not getting re-elected, the scheme will grow and grow.

again, some facts suggest you all read

The data analysis in this paper, however, indicate that public employees, both state and local government, are not overpaid. Comparisons controlling for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity and disability, reveal no significant overpayment but a slight undercompensation of public employees when compared to private employee compensation costs on a per hour basis. On average, full-time state and local employees are undercompensated by 3.7%, in comparison to otherwise similar private-sector workers. The public employee compensation penalty is smaller for local government employees (1.8%) than state government workers (7.6%).

from the executive summary of "Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee"-- 14 page report of study online in pdf format

American Idle - nobody here is talking about salaries. I'm talking about UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITIES. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if a government employee can retire with full pension after 20 years (age 45 or so) and be replaced by another government employee who can retire after 20 years then at a normal retirement age, the taxpayers are paying TWO PENSIONS for the same job! God, Forget the damned salaries - who cares? It's the friggin pensions that will bankrupt us! And don't ask for a link, again, it's COMMON SENSE NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

Here is link to a site with many other links and stories about pension funds and the growing liabilities faced by taxpayers.

http://www.pensiontsunami.com/

I watched a segment of 60 minutes last weekend-- the report made me think 'oh no, now they're going after the govt employee's pensions to pay for their excesses'

(CBS)

By now, just about everyone in the country is aware of the federal deficit problem, but you should know that there is another financial crisis looming involving state and local governments.

It has gotten much less attention because each state has a slightly different story. But in the two years, since the "great recession" wrecked their economies and shriveled their income, the states have collectively spent nearly a half a trillion dollars more than they collected in taxes. There is also a trillion dollar hole iln their public pension funds.

The states have been getting by on billions of dollars in federal stimulus funds, but the day of reckoning is at hand. The debt crisis is already making Wall Street nervous, and some believe that it could derail the recovery, cost a million public employees their jobs and require another big bailout package that no one in Washington wants to talk about.

Mtpromises - if everybody in America had watched that segment we'd be quaking in our boots. It was a real eye-opener

We're living on borrowed time. Whereas one could argue that the stimulus money and the manipulation of the monetary system by the Fed have bought us a stay of execution, the fact remains that the federal government is simply no match for economic forces originating within the private sector. Just as the Hoover administration was powerless to fend off the collapse of the 1930s, the Obama administration and the Fed are comparably impotent.

They either don't realize it or they do and won't let on.

Regarding pension plans, both in both the public and private sectors:

Not having learned from the steep selloff in 2008, many plan managers remain heavily invested in the stock market. There is a strong case to be made for yet another downturn, which would eat away at the assets in the portfolios of pension funds. The feds won't be able to bail everyone out, so it's quite possible that retirees will see their income slashed simply because the funds cannot afford to continue current payouts.

Wolf

It's anyone's guess as to what the consequence of the Fed's manipulation of the supply of dollars will be. If the governors of the Fed are honest with themselves they will realize that they are sailing uncharted waters where unexpected perils loom.

There's a strong argument for deflation ahead, one of the Fed's worst nightmares. Any financial situation – deflation included – can work in one's favor providing proper positioning beforehand. In a deflationary environment, dollars are king because as prices fall each dollar grows in purchasing power. Try telling this to the institutional and private investors who after watching stocks soar for nearly two years now are convinced the value of their shares will do nothing but grow!

There is very little evidence that the printing of money has succeeded.

I don't see how it can. Printing more dollars does not create more value; it merely dilutes the value of existing dollars and thus amounts to a scheme for distribution of wealth ... no surprise here in the light of Obama's admission to Joe the Plumber during campaign 2008.

It will be interesting to see whether the House accepts the Marxist policies of the Obama administration in 2011.

The good news is that the House can now put the brakes on Obama's spree. We can still expect the echo chamber of the left to maintain the drumbeat of "obstructionist Republicans", while remaining oblivious to the fact that many of the plans being opposed are just bad for the nation.

Wolf

I'll gladly contribute that in general I'm clueless about national policies. That being said, at this juncture I'd prefer if the feds backed off somewhat instead of shoveling on more regulations and expanding their influence further into the private sector.

This isn't to say industry and consumers aren't contributing to the problems. But I don't see governmental pressure as anything more than mildly helpful at best and potentially crippling at worst. That being said, I wonder if the pols have taken the messages from the Tea Parties to heart yet:

• Smaller government
• Fiscal responsibility
• Free markets

Probably not.

Wolf

Rickace...Maybe the Energy Department should be closed instead of expanding it, right?

If the energy department was in the private sector, it would have gone out of business for failure to produce.

Aye. Industry is best left to the capitalists in the private sector for a number of reasons. The founding fathers understood that and deliberately restricted the powers of government to prevent it from meddling in affairs it isn't capable of managing.

This argument BTW is the cornerstone of my opposition to the bailouts, the stimulus, and federal ownership of shares of corporations like GM. The feds will claim that all were "necessary" but in fact that can be proven only by experiment ... an experiment that was shunned in favor of a different experiment: federal meddling justified by Chicken Little officials shrieking "systemic risk" and "too big to fail".

Obama – not the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with – hitched his presidency to the economy, which can be a positive when conditions improve. To a degree they have and naturally the administration is milking that for all it's worth. It can easily backfire though, and the electorate can be merciless when things go south. That's just what torpedoed President Hoover's hopes for a second term and ended twelve years of Republicans in the White House.

Wolf

So, my next point is that we have departed tradition and heritage.

We certainly have, and arguably for the worse. Our financial system has become quite shaky, all things told. I'm disturbed most by the towering national debt, followed closely by the belief of the feds that to get us out of our slump the government must spend like a drunken sailor.

As for the legislation, well ... that speaks for itself. Here's the byzantine text of the health care bill. It seems like only the attorneys can figure out what it's good for, which is likely to be how they can exploit it to feather their own nests and those of their clients.

Wolf

I have thought that owning gold or precious metals in some form might be a solution. It wouldn't be readily available to government.

True right now, but then there's a nasty precedent: Executive Order 6102. When times get tough the feds can get crazy. Bad crazy.

It would be subject to theft. Storage and transportation would be a problem. I don't trust others to handle storage.

Ownership of gold has its risks, one being theft as you note, another being loss of dollar value. That being said, there's a strong argument to be made for keeping some of one's wealth in the form of gold. Gold has always been real money, whereas since the U.S. jettisoned the gold standard circa 1930 the dollar has has no real value.

I don't trust others to handle storage.

It boils down to choosing the least likely way to get screwed by having your gold stolen (illegally or by force of law). One way to own gold quite safely is by letting a trustworthy agent buy and store it for you. GoldMoney for example boasts deposits of $1.5 billion in precious metals owned by its clients and secured in vaults in London, Zurich, and Hong Kong. The fed can't swipe what they don't have jurisdiction over.

One thing to consider is that the price of gold in dollars is presently very high so perhaps scaling in (dollar cost averaging) is a prudent way to invest. The high price BTW explains the recent spate of TV ads placed by gold sellers, who wouldn't be buying all that air time if it wasn't bringing in the pigeons to be fleeced customers ;-}

Charles

How about an IRS and FBI on your front steps saying "Hand it over"?

Charles Kang, if you were righ, you would be despised by all the entitlemnt minded people that want to take it away or that you OWE them your money.

They ARE helping to support society. When you keep saying they need to pay more so WE can have more, that is entitlement any way you cut it. Why don't you focus on making YOURSELF better rather than demanding someone else do it for you?

Thinksbeforejudging,

Bil Gates gave away about 1/3rd of his wealth a couple years ago. Yet people still want to put the screws to him to give more. Many of the wealthy form non-profit foundations to promote education, help the poor, and to provide healthcare. The only problem is that many of them actually do it without calling attention to themselves or trying to avoide attention. Yet, people like you want to keep putting the screws to them, and I ask you why?

Bill Gates is awesome, and he has done far more than his fair share. Not many are like Bill Gates.

Amen.

Hoka Hey!

I'm amazed that people are STILL bitching about the rich paying (too much in) taxes. Didn't they get what they wanted with this tax rate bill, along with a ton of pork? What's the deal?

Rich individuals pay less in this country than in ANY other modern country in the world.

And they've managed to fool millions of Teapublicans into believing that the rich are actually being mistreated in the USA.

The Right has an apparently endless supply of fools.

I respectfully disagree WW. The bottom half of wage earners in this country make enough to survive and that's about it. I won't speculate about why the right wants to tax those who are at or are near poverty. I just know that I don't believe it's right and I'll never vote for anyone who says it is.

While those doing well do pay the most income taxes, they also make exponentially more money. You can call that redistribution..... as if these people were being harmed in some way if you like, but the fact is that those paying the most taxes also earn much more money than they did a decade ago, while the middle class.......those freeloaders who only pay 25%.....have lost a tremendous amount of ground.

The real redistribution has been and continues to be to the wealthy and it's due in no small part to the ridiculously low top rate.. I think 50% on everything over a million a year would fit the current situation well, with a 39% rate on those making over 250k. I know that the right will claim that this would kill the economy, but top marginal rates in the past have been much higher without any detrimental effects.

Why should a family that subsists on 30000 per year have to pay 8% on purchases just like the millionaires across town? That isn't fair at all, that would saddle those in the lower brackets with a much larger burden.

Flat tax? Natl sales tax? No thanks.

It's just like fines and speeding tickets, they should be based on a person's net worth as opposed to being a flat rate for all. Do you think a 100 dollar fine causes the same amount of pain to a millionaire as it does to a someone making $12 an hour? A millionaire laughs at most fines. They would laugh all the way to the bank with a flat tax or a natl sales tax and more of the burden would shift to the poor.

BTW, just because the wealthy pay the most income taxes, it's not as if those in the bottom 50% don't pay any taxes. Gas tax, utilities, property tax, sales tax, almost every exchange of money is taxed regardless of income and the poor pay the same rate as the wealthy on those taxes. Of course they don't get to take depreciation on their cars and homes.

I have no doubt that you disagree completely and that's fine, I didn't really expect to change anyone's mind, I just wanted to let you all know my position.

Moo, right on. flat tax, national sales tax, "value added" tax.... all regressive.

Also have to point out that it is the wealthiest Americans that get the most out of government. Laws create the playing field for capitalism and protect it as well. They get huge bang for the buck by "investing" in lobbyists and political campaigns. The poor, working and middle classes haven't got a chance.

Another aspect is that low top tax rate only encourages reckless and risky investment. That's what happened all during Bush II and contributed to our economic woes.

Low top tax rate preceded the Great Depression.

Low top tax rate preceded the Reagan Recession.

Low top tax rate preceded the Great Recession from Bush II to now.

Leading economists warned against Bush tax cuts:

http://archive.epinet.org/real_media/030210/index.html

Economists Voice Opposition to Bush Tax Cuts
A news conference — Monday, February 10, 2003

Ten Nobel laureates and over 400 other economists have signed a statement saying the Bush Administration�s tax plan will not create jobs and growth in the near-term and will lead to chronic deficits.

The statement was released on Monday, February 10, 2003 at a 10:00 a.m. press conference in the Holeman Lounge of the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Three Nobel laureates presented the statement to the press and outlined their criticisms of the Bush tax plan, as well as offered suggestions to stimulate the economy that would be effective and immediate.

Read the Economists' Statement

Listen to an audio recording of the event (approx. 1 hour):

• click for streaming audio clip (Real Audio)
• right-click to download (MP3) (~64 MB)

Read a transcript of the recording

Participants:

Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel prize in economic science, 2001

Franco Modigliani, winner of the Nobel prize in economic science, 1985

Lawrence Klein, winner of the Nobel prize in economic science, 1980

Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, moderator

Guess we should have listened to them.

The reason that the rich are wealthy, is because of all of the spending by the people on the bottom of this pyramid of wealth.

If you want to improve the economy and create even more wealth, the best way to do it is by making sure that the people on the bottom have more money to spend. This means more, better-paying jobs in this country.

Heavily tax overseas investments, remove incentives to invest in foreign countries, and fairly tax all imports. Tax outsourced labor, and create incentives for American job growth.

Cut spending! Streamline and improve Social Security and Medicare. Reduce the Military to a reasonable level (About 25% of current funding.).

Funny, Wolf... if I was a troll, I would have been banned by now, judging from other people I know being banned from here (usually illegitimately and later being re-instated).

Please indicate the screen names of those who have been banned and reinstated. I know of exactly one. And it was before you arrived. Of course, not much has happened in your (ahem) long tenure of 3 whopping months.

Throwing around the troll word is inflammatory so... REPORTED!

Saying "do not feed the trolls" is in no way, a violation of CoH. I would strongly suggest you take the time to read the guidelines before you make yourself look foolish by pretending to be an expert on them.

Lastly, you forgot to put: "Neener-neener...I told teacher!"...at the end of your post.