And to think that Bush has already spent 1/2 trillion on Iraq. That doesn’t include the long-term costs nor keeping the troops in Iraq until the end of his term.

Bet this will be a trillion dollar war: approximately 20% of what Americans make in a year.

To head off a wingnut argument:

When a company’s stock price goes up it does not follow that the company will invest their new found liquidity in creating new jobs.

Recent history shows that the “investments” that comapneis are willing to make are in China or the CEO’s paycheck.

If their money is invested in physical things, such as in “let’s build a manufacturing plant,” then it truly does help the economy. More people are employed. But if it is invested in the stock market, (a metaphor for Scrooge McDuck’s room) it just increases the paper worth of those stocks already there. Their value exists only if you sell high; no extra person becomes employed.

Now if you tax the wealthy at 45% (to pick an arbitrary figure), and say “you know, all the money you spend on research and development, you can write off against your taxes”, then instead of giving to the Government with no gain, those rich souls will invest it in physical resources that directly help themselves. Jobs are created. The economy grows. Opportunity exists for all to move up.

That is why Clinton’s economy was widely successful. It put money into the hands of people who buy. That is also why all intelligent republicans should either convert now, or quit.

lol

Using 2006 Census Data also provided by Chris, we see that the poverty level fell 2005-2006 from 12.6% to 12.3%. Two concurring trends that prove the economy is trickling down……Bush Reaganomics work.

In typical republican fashion he assumes all evidence existing before 2004 does not matter. If the poverty levels are looked at over the past 7 years, we see that in 1999, the poverty level was 11.3 %. If the current hopeful trend continues, by 2012, the economy should be as good for the poor as it was during the Clinton years…….The Bush legacy of tax cuts is responsible for pushing the poverty level from 11.3% up to 12.7%, a high from which it is descending now, amidst all the “hoopla”: whoopee.

Now if you tax the wealthy at 45% (to pick an arbitrary figure), and say “you know, all the money you spend on research and development, you can write off against you taxes, then instead of giving to the Government with no gain, they invest it in physical resources that indirectly help themselves. Jobs are created. The economy grows. Opportunity exists for all to move up.

That is why Clinton’s economy was widely successful. It put money into the hads of people who buy. That is why all intelligent republicans should either convert now, or quit.

lol

Unsupported opinion.

Do rich people help the economy by spending and investing?

My opinion? I doubt it. Maybe the economy of the Cayman Islands.

And one more opinion. Class mobility has stalled – which means the rich are doing less and less to be rich. They simply are. The other side of the coin is that it is now more difficult for a middle class person to get rich. If you are not rich in 2007 – then tough luck. You and your kids better get used to not having much money.

it is pretty bad now, but when you take the estate tax or “death tax” down to zero you will really see class mobility become a thing of the past.

Even when rich people make lots and lots of money, what do they do with it? They don’t keep it around in huge piles like Scrooge McDuck. They either spend it or invest it. Either way, they end up employing people. Remember when Carter added huge taxes to the yacht industry in the 70’s? No more US yacht builders. Those who went out of business weren’t zillionaires. They worked for a living.

As to quell speculation that some of those families may be of dual income, the data mentioned was compiled off of Income Tax returns. Only if both partners filed separately, would the double up effect occur. Filing jointly would count as one. Any doubt can be erased by cross referencing those IRS figures with the Household Census Data you use in your rebuttal.

Again the problem is that the excessive amount of wealth on the high end of the income spectrum, drives up the averages for all.

Bill Gates walks into a bar and the average income of each patron soars 2 Billion….That is how averages work.

According to the Census Data, in 2006 our total household income amounted 5.45 Trillion dollars….out of which the top third, was earned by 6.8% of the income earning population. That leaves two thirds or 93.2% of Americans diving up a pot of 3.64 trillion.

That drops the average household income to $34,518. That is a big difference from the medium of $48,201.

As I mentioned before, the wealthy are doing great. They should be loving this economy. But as the energy, pharmaceutical, and insurance executives pocket huge untaxed bonuses, those people on the bottom two thirds, are sweating without AC, skipping their medications, and not seeking medical care…..because they cannot afford it……

No complaint on how well the economy is doing. The complaint is that it is not being shared by all, and the data shows it, once you skim all the butter off the top…..