AMERICAblog: What about small business? What about the rest of us?
Curt M
· 10 months ago
Progressives need to back Obama up on Panetta! With this pick Obama has truly told the neo-cons where they can shove their philosophy of brutal interrogations and crappy intelligence.
Pissing off Feinstein and the pathetic Rockefeller PROVES this is a great pick. Rockefeller has been a lapdog for years and hasn't held the Republicans accountable for anything. Feinstein is little better.
This pick is a win for progressives. We should acknowledge that fact and reward Obama by guarding his back on Panetta.
MikeinSanJo
· 10 months ago
Curt M, I think you're posting on the wrong thread.
Happy New Year! ;-)
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
LOL it's okay, a well-argued comment is always welcome :-)
Clancy
· 10 months ago
Typical American response from John: "But, what's in it for me?"
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
No, what's in it for people LIKE him. A whole demographic. Don't be obtuse.
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
Exactly. Only the poor and the super-rich deserve help from the government to ensure that they can weather the recession, and more generally, get any help prospering at all. It's a typical selfish attitude on the right, but it's sad to see it so prevalent on the left as well. Frankly, it reminds me a bit of the pro-life crowd - only worry about the baby before he's born. Or in this case, only worry about the worker when he's really poor - then screw him the rest of the time.
Bruiser
· 10 months ago
Question : Where is Obama on the idea he had about letting people get 10,000 a year tax free, penalty free from their 401 K.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
I think it's amusing that the middle is so often left out of everything.. poor people don't buy things. Rich do not make up enough of a population percentage to prop up the US economy. What drives a consumer economy?
The middle class. They buy the food, the houses, the cars, the clothes, the services. Without them, the economy fails.
Why is this some huge mystery in the minds of some people?
Clancy
· 10 months ago
What ever. Yes, because the tax cut is the totality of the bill? I'm pretty sure your demographic will get plenty in the spending program (for that's who usually gets that money, the middle, via jobs). The only one's being obtuse are those who focus on one particular portion of the larger whole and don't see what's in it for them. I guess, technically, that's being acute, but still . . . John, I can only assume you're being purposefully dense on this.
tbhull
· 10 months ago
The best way to solve this problem is to take the taxing authority away from DC, taxation and monetary policy is after all the way the federal government enslaves all but the top 1/2 of 1% of the population. When collecting taxes the wealthy have an egregious advantage and rarely pay any where near the effective tax rate as wage earners. Likewise, now that the government is redistributing tax dollars (after politicians take their cut) the large corporations owned by the wealthy in various forms take home the lion share of these dollars as well.
So long as people work and pay taxes to this government the system will continue. Working taxpaying Americans (middle or upper middle class) must simply recognize and admit that they are the slaves for worldwide wealth and the ever intrusive US government is their overseer.
MikeinSanJo
· 10 months ago
Why has no one mentioned Student Loans in all of this? Admissions and Financial Aid offices were just as hungry as mortgage bankers in pushing loans on people who wouldn't qualify today. I wound up with monthly payments that my new skills couldn't support, and the school I attended turned out to be nothing more than a diploma mill.
How about some relief there - at least lowering those interest rates too?
captainj1
· 10 months ago
I agree with the reader. It is difficult to be struggling to make ends meet and not be considered important enough to be helped. In my case I did not get a refund last year, and probably will not this year, either. I am retired and now having to live off of a small pension and my 401k. My partner got sick (cancer) last year, and could not work. I supported him. We are gay and not able to have our "marriage" blessed by the government. As a result, I had to take a large amount out of my quickly diminishing 401k. This was considered income and put me over the maximum amount for a refund. My partner made nothing but a small disability, and as a result did not make enough income to qualify him to receive a refund.
Talk about being caught in a donut hole!
Forty2
· 10 months ago
Any little bit helps, even $19 per pay period, if you're on the lower end of the wage scale, but in the end it won't amount to anything.
I would opt out of this scheme if I could. A $500 tax credit doesn't mean shit to me. I spent my last "stimulus" in France, not having any debt left to pay down. Give the break to people who actually need it, including small businesses and the self-employed.
cutepolishgirl
· 10 months ago
As I am self-employed, I won't see $19 per paycheck. But I am wondering, instead of giving people disposable extra money (as if $19 will go very far) why not give families coupons towards goods or services. Have a menu of items to pick from such as: health care coupons to be applied to insurance or medical bills; food coupons to be used at grocery stores; home improvement towards new appliances, windows, roof, plumbing, carpentry or masonry etc...; auto coupons for repairs or a new auto; Child care/education coupons towards preschools or college ed..... Give each individual or family a realistic amount to use that will actually help them make it through the tough times, while also helping out another business as the recipient of the coupon.
Obviously I am not in government and I am sure there are some great ideas out there, but why does the gov't (even the new one of change) fall back on the same old ideas of giving some people extra cash and hope it is used wisely by the people?
Danjr0802
· 10 months ago
Well, considering I'm now paying back the "stimulus" from last year and will owe $1000.00 and I'm not "upper middle class", kiss my butt.
Really John, I was nauseous last year reading you complain that you were getting money to help when you didn't actually need help. It's absurd and it sounds ridiculously selfish.
There's another party for that type of thinking - the GOP.
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
There's another party for what kind of thinking, Dan? That only the working poor and rich companies ever deserve the government's help, but nobody else? What party would that be? I'd like a political party, for once, that actually tries to help all Americans. You seem think that I, for example, don't deserve the government's help in ensuring my livelihood, in making sure I can buy a home, in making sure I don't go broke this year. Why is that? Am I somehow special? Somehow particularly undeserving? You sound kind of bitter, and elitist. If you don't think all Americans deserve to be helped, then explain to us why, rather than simply using buzz words about "selfishness." Honestly, you sound selfish when you suggest that you, or only some people, are deserving of help. Everyone in our country deserves to have a government that helps them prosper. That isn't Republican or Democratic - and unfortunately, of late it seems to be neither.
driver
· 10 months ago
Change We can count on My ass the only change I see from this new bunch is the remainder of My pay in my pocket,about .30 cents
timr
· 10 months ago
C'mon John, every time a stimulus check is announced, you complain that you aren't getting a check. Has the recession really hurt your blog ads? Is nobody reading Americablog anymore? I love this site but you always sound so ridiculous on this issue. I mean, I think the whole stimulus check thing has been proven not to work at this point and is a bad idea, but complaining that poorer people don't need the money as much as you is absurd.
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
You are aware that the advertising market is being decimated by the recession, right - as it was in 2001? Why are you mocking this? And making up lies to boot? Did you bother reading what I wrote before you decided to attack and mock? Who said the poor don't need money or help? In fact, I suggested that the amount they're being given, $19 a paycheck, is an outright joke. The problem is that people who think the poor are the only people in America who are worried about the future, who are worried about keeping a roof over their head, worried about health care, worried about the recession and whether they'll have a job or an income next year, are - well, I'm not sure what you are. Offensive is a word that comes to mind, as is elitist. Are you really here to tell us that the Democratic party is only about helping the poor, and no one else? If so, I'd like you to just admit it outright and let's have that debate openly. Because if you think the recession isn't affecting everyone, you're nuts and woefully uninformed. Sorry, but you decided to make this personal, so let's talk facts. If you have them.
Older_Wiser
· 10 months ago
Everybody suffers a little bit, I suppose. You just have to put it in perspective. And you don't necessarily need an expensive accountant, just a good tax preparer, to find those loopholes (not those 7 day wonders they employ at H&R Block who have less accounting experience than I do).
Maybe I should start my own blog if the pay is that good; that is, if I had enough money for the right equipment to start with, and the education, smarts and just plain chutzpah might work wonders as well. That will never happen on my tiny income, I'd love to count myself, income wise at least, among the "upper middle class" though it might have been better to be that well off when my kids were growing up and we were really struggling.
So, don't feel bad, John. Millions of us on fixed incomes will never see a dime, either. And I could use it to pay off some medical bills that Medicare didn't cover for my minor surgery last summer (which cost about $25K including the biopsy). Or buy more groceries for the leaner times ahead.
Have they announced the top income level that will be receiving those cuts? Has it topped $200K yet?
Jay Randal
· 10 months ago
$500 IS TOO LITTLE TO HELP WORKERS!
Congressional membership gave themselves wage hike of a few thousand dollars, so stimulus benefits of $500 for working Americans is NOT enough. If members of Congress deserve a few thousand, then so do the workers. Americans who are unemployed will not benefit from it and amount is too paltry to help people whose homes are being foreclosed. Obama can be F.D.R. or Hubert Hoover!
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
OT: Burris denied seat in US Senate to succeed Obama
Jan 6, 11:29 AM (ET)
By LAURIE KELLMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Roland Burris announced Tuesday he was rejected for Barack Obama's Senate seat, in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Congress into session.
Standing amid a huge throng of reporters and television cameras in a cold and steady rain, Burris, 71, declared that he had been informed that "my credentials are not in order and will not be accepted."
The former Illinois attorney general said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat that he was appointed to by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich. But Burris also said he was looking at options for taking the seat.
It was a spectacular demonstration of political gridlock at a time when the Democratic-controlled Congress has been eagerly awaiting Obama's inauguration while nervously anticipating tense work on a much-discussed stimulus program to steady the faltering economy.
An attorney for Burris, Timothy W. Wright III, said that "our credentials were rejected by the secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record books. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath. All of which we think was improperly done and is against the law of this land. We will consider our options and we will certainly let you know what our decisions will be soon thereafter."
Asked what his options were, Wright said there possibly could be a court challenge and he said that Burris also would continue to talk to the Senate leadership.
There had been earlier indications that the Senate would disallow Burris to take his seat, at least in part because his letter of appointment from Blagojevich was not co-signed by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
Ooh thanks, just posted it,
rasscot
· 10 months ago
I am a sole proprietor. Last year my sales were down 38%. My income was down 75%. This plan does nothing to help people like me. It will not stimulate my sales which is what is needed.
kr
· 10 months ago
Well, I made $60,000 last year and still got a stimulus check. You must have very broad definition of "working poor."
iWoman
· 10 months ago
Really? I was wondering what the income levels for the checks were/are. $60,000? I'd love to be that "poor."
$60,000 is *rich* to a lot of people.
Older_Wiser
· 10 months ago
To put all this in perspective, from John W. Whitehead's 3/11/08 column in the HuffPo:
While working class Americans are getting poorer (there are five million more poor people today than in 2005), studies show that the rich are indeed getting richer. According to the Center for American Progress, 37 million Americans, a size roughly equivalent to the population of California, live below the official poverty line. Thus, in a nation of almost 297 million people, 12.6 percent are poor (for instance, a family of four that makes less than $19,971 is considered poor). And one out of every three Americans is considered low-income.
At the other end of the spectrum, 19 percent of the nation's income is held by the richest one percent of Americans who, according to former New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, have gotten richer as a result of taxes, subsidies and regulatory policies that "take from the many to give to the already superrich."
In his latest book, Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With the Bill, Johnston explains that the trend of government policies favoring the superrich began when Ronald Reagan became president and has continued through the Clinton and Bush administrations. "The 400 highest-income Americans--people who on average make well over $100 million a year--were paying 30 cents on the dollar when (Bill) Clinton came to office, 22 cents when he left," said Johnston. "Under (George W.) Bush, they're paying 17."
A number of America's wealthy elite are also on the government's payroll, serving in the U.S. Congress. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics reported in 2006 that about half of the Senate's 100 members are also millionaires and their average net worth is $8.9 million.
Even those members of Congress who do not belong to the so-called "Millionaire's Club" enjoy a host of congressional perks. In addition to their six-figure salaries, our representatives also receive millions to maintain offices in their home state and in the nation's capital, as well as other benefits such as free life insurance, a generous retirement plan for life, 32 fully reimbursed road trips home a year, as well as travel to foreign lands--all of which comes at taxpayer expense. And then there are the "extras" ranging from discounts in Capitol Hill tax-free shops and restaurants, $10 haircuts at the Congressional barbershop and free reserved parking at Washington National Airport to use of the House gym or Senate baths for $100 a year, free fresh-cut flowers from the Botanic Gardens and free assistance in the preparation of income taxes.
Any questions?
tbhull
· 10 months ago
The Congress in reality represent the wealthy's sales staff daily kneeling before the wealthy, slobbing their knobs and then selling the wealthy's bag of shit to the enslaved masses, playing the government power card all the while. The best sales people/members of Congress get the biggest bonuses for peddling largest sack of shit. The Iraq war paid and continues to pay handsomely to dems and repubs.
tbhull
· 10 months ago
As for wealthy elite in Congress, these folks are owner operators.
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
" It's a bit like the mortgage mess - if you actually pay your mortgage on time, and/or wisely didn't gamble on a mortgage bigger than you could afford, no one has plans to bail you out"
Great point. I made wise choices, and I did not buy high priced real estate with a crazy mortgage etc. Nothing is being done to help me out or make my life easier in these difficult economic times. Guess I should have really fucked up so that I could get bailed out. (Sarcasm)
There is also nothing being done to help people with student loans. Why not just lower the interest rates on student loans. I wisely chose to go to public undergrad and law school so I don't owe nearly as much as some people I know, but my interest rate is 8 percent. This is money I borrowed for my education, not so I could live in a McMansion.
nicho
· 10 months ago
Yeah, same thing happened to me. My neighbor had a heart attack and the ambulance took him to the hospital. I had to go to the hospital to visit him and the ambulance wouldn't come and get me, because I didn't have a heart attack. I had to take the bus. That's what I get for taking care of myself and not having a heart attack. Bastards!
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
Now perhaps you could explain why someone who speculated on a house, and lost, is entitled to my/your/our money to help them pay for their gambling debt. I'm not talking about someone who was cheated. I'm talking about the very large number of people who knew exactly what they were doing - they gambled that they'd be able to sell their house at a profit in the next two years, knowing full well that they couldn't afford the mortgage payments after that point. We are very much being punished for someone else's bad judgment in many of these cases. And it's your money, our money, that is being spent to make them right. When you can explain that, we'll all laugh with you.
Naja pallida
· 10 months ago
Not just those that intended to buy and sell again relatively quickly, but those who gambled with variable rate mortgages, and didn't stop to think of the obvious: When the market is good, your rate is good. When the market is bad, your rate is bad. I can't feel sorry for those people. They took a chance, when there was every chance that the market could tank and their rate go to crap.
kr
· 10 months ago
I'm not an economist, so correct me if I'm missing something here. If all those speculators default on their mortgages, banks will eventually take possession of these houses and sell them at a fraction of their original value. This, in turn, will drive down the prices of other houses in the neighborhood. This means that homeowners like me, who have a sensible mortgage on a house they can afford, will lose far more money in vanishing home equity than what we lose in our small part of the bailout. And even if you don't own a home, the resulting negative effect on the economy will raise unemployment, drive down property tax revenue, and yes, eventually affect even you. People who took out risky mortgages don't live in their own separate world; what they do affects all of us. Yes, they did something stupid, and yes, some people would enjoy watching them suffer (not me). Still, sometimes government exists to keep the stupid people from hurting the rest of us. I think this is one of those instances.
dula
· 10 months ago
Speaking from Los Angeles, house prices need to be driven down. If you bought high during the feeding frenzy here, your house will be worth less, true, but perhaps you shouldn't have participated in the unsustainable craze.
kr
· 10 months ago
Well, I didn't buy high and I don't really care about the current value of my house (in Washington, DC, where we know a little bit about overpriced real estate); I was one of those people who actually bought a reasonably priced house with a fixed-rate mortgage. My point is that plummeting house prices have an effect on everyone, regardless of whether or not you actually own a house. As property tax revenues plummet, my county is facing a $500 million deficit. The glut of houses on the market has led to a steep decline in construction in my area, throwing many people, homeowners and renters, out of work. Entire cities are suffering with unprecedented numbers of vacant, foreclosed houses. These problems have an enormous ripple effect. If the people on this site who are gloating over others' misfortune would actually think about someone besides themselves for a change, they would see that. Cheap houses aren't so great if the country tips into a depression.
dula
· 10 months ago
I was referring only to LA, where the most modest, hole-in-the-wall shack goes for at least 500K (and that's a really really good deal). If prices would ever fall to a realistic level for the majority to actually afford them, it may cause a ripple effect but the effects of unsustainable greed are far worse.
aibi
· 10 months ago
It just breaks my heart to hear about you upper middle class folks not getting your fair share, especially coupled with John's constant complaining about all the government help for the working poor.
All these "stimulus" checks come with high and low cut-off points. It makes sense to me to not send the wealthy (or even the upper middle class) a stimulus check - but to not send a stimulus check to the poor is stupid, because they will spend it immediately, and it's cruel, because the poor hear about all those people, who live in decent houses, drive decent cars, wear nice clothes, can feed their children, and take vacations, are getting tax rebates to "stimulate" the economy .
You, John, always throw in some comment about how much the poor get from the government. Like what? Food stamps? Like anyone can feed themselves on $150 a month? My guess is that an extra $19 per paycheck would make a difference in the lives of a lot of people, not a big difference, granted, but a difference. When it comes to economics and the poor, John, you sound an awful lot like a Republican, a Reagan Republican.
How about eliminating all tax deductions so everyone has to pay income taxes on all their income, just like the working poor do? How about mandating a living wage that applies to both ends of the economic spectrum and eliminate that oxymoronic term the "working" poor? How about putting a dent in the Social Security fiasco by requiring everyone to pay Social Security on every penny they earn, just like the poor do? How about you quit thinking so much about youeself and start thinking a little more about those who not only have so much less than you but are trapped in lives in which they will never have even close to what you already have?
mike
· 10 months ago
The "rest of us." Obama and the rest of the Democratic cabal of multimillionaire corporate lawyers couldn't care less about the rest of us. What they are about is stealing as much money from the country as they can. That's all. The bailout bill they rammed through last fall was just the first step. The trillion dollar deficits (which means massive interest payments to corporate banks) are the second. This isn't your grandfather's Democratic party, folks. It's a cabal of some of the most corrupt people who have ever lived. They are lawyers, all of them. And you know what that means. And we thought the Republicans were bad. Just wait.
Linda McCormick
· 10 months ago
My husband , a lawyer is in the same position . He does well enough to pay the bills but we too, can not afford a tax expert so we also pay one third in taxes. We didn't get any breaks on our childrens college tuition and payed the full tuition. We believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxex but it just seems that we are in that group that just keeps paying, doing the right thing and not getting any of the benifits . It is also getting harder to keep it all up. I hate to complain but what about people like us?
dula
· 10 months ago
Most people are already strapped and cannot take on any more tax burden. It's the corporations that haven't been paying their fair share. I've read reports that upwards of 70% of them pay NO taxes at all. When are we going to demand that they pay up???
Ferdiad
· 10 months ago
John, you are dead on with this one. I have been saying for some time that the people getting squeezed the most are small business, the professional class and upper middle class. Yes, most of these groups aren't in dire straights, but they are carrying the largest tax burden, one that increased in the past 20 years. I think the reason is that it is politically sexy to give handouts to the poor and downtrodden, and the super wealthy have enough influence to get tax breaks, but the guy making $200,000 (might sound like a lot, but not really in most major cities) gets squeezed. He doesn't make enough to actually buy any influence in the halls of power in Washington, but makes too much to get any sympathy from the media or anyone else. Thus, his/her tax burden continues to increase.
kr
· 10 months ago
$200,000 isn't a lot? I wasn't going to comment on this, but it just makes me mad when people say stuff like this. The median household income in Montgomery County, MD, one of the wealthiest counties in the country (where I live) is $87,000 (that's household, not individual). If you're making $200,000, you're making more than most people living in major cities. Remarkably enough, making less than a six-figure salary doesn't qualify anyone as poor, no matter where they live in this country--there's a huge difference between poverty and simply living beyond your means. I would love to see the day in this country when it becomes politically sexy to actually do something about the "downtrodden," but believe me, we certainly aren't there yet.
All Comments
Pissing off Feinstein and the pathetic Rockefeller PROVES this is a great pick. Rockefeller has been a lapdog for years and hasn't held the Republicans accountable for anything. Feinstein is little better.
This pick is a win for progressives. We should acknowledge that fact and reward Obama by guarding his back on Panetta.
Happy New Year!
;-)
The middle class. They buy the food, the houses, the cars, the clothes, the services. Without them, the economy fails.
Why is this some huge mystery in the minds of some people?
So long as people work and pay taxes to this government the system will continue. Working taxpaying Americans (middle or upper middle class) must simply recognize and admit that they are the slaves for worldwide wealth and the ever intrusive US government is their overseer.
How about some relief there - at least lowering those interest rates too?
Talk about being caught in a donut hole!
I would opt out of this scheme if I could. A $500 tax credit doesn't mean shit to me. I spent my last "stimulus" in France, not having any debt left to pay down. Give the break to people who actually need it, including small businesses and the self-employed.
Obviously I am not in government and I am sure there are some great ideas out there, but why does the gov't (even the new one of change) fall back on the same old ideas of giving some people extra cash and hope it is used wisely by the people?
Really John, I was nauseous last year reading you complain that you were getting money to help when you didn't actually need help. It's absurd and it sounds ridiculously selfish.
There's another party for that type of thinking - the GOP.
Maybe I should start my own blog if the pay is that good; that is, if I had enough money for the right equipment to start with, and the education, smarts and just plain chutzpah might work wonders as well. That will never happen on my tiny income, I'd love to count myself, income wise at least, among the "upper middle class" though it might have been better to be that well off when my kids were growing up and we were really struggling.
So, don't feel bad, John. Millions of us on fixed incomes will never see a dime, either. And I could use it to pay off some medical bills that Medicare didn't cover for my minor surgery last summer (which cost about $25K including the biopsy). Or buy more groceries for the leaner times ahead.
Have they announced the top income level that will be receiving those cuts? Has it topped $200K yet?
Congressional membership gave themselves wage hike of a few thousand dollars, so stimulus benefits of $500 for working Americans is NOT enough. If members of Congress deserve a few thousand, then so do the workers. Americans who are unemployed will not benefit from it and amount is too paltry to help people whose homes are being foreclosed. Obama can be F.D.R. or Hubert Hoover!
Jan 6, 11:29 AM (ET)
By LAURIE KELLMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Roland Burris announced Tuesday he was rejected for Barack Obama's Senate seat, in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Congress into session.
Standing amid a huge throng of reporters and television cameras in a cold and steady rain, Burris, 71, declared that he had been informed that "my credentials are not in order and will not be accepted."
The former Illinois attorney general said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat that he was appointed to by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich. But Burris also said he was looking at options for taking the seat.
It was a spectacular demonstration of political gridlock at a time when the Democratic-controlled Congress has been eagerly awaiting Obama's inauguration while nervously anticipating tense work on a much-discussed stimulus program to steady the faltering economy.
An attorney for Burris, Timothy W. Wright III, said that "our credentials were rejected by the secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record books. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath. All of which we think was improperly done and is against the law of this land. We will consider our options and we will certainly let you know what our decisions will be soon thereafter."
Asked what his options were, Wright said there possibly could be a court challenge and he said that Burris also would continue to talk to the Senate leadership.
There had been earlier indications that the Senate would disallow Burris to take his seat, at least in part because his letter of appointment from Blagojevich was not co-signed by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.
people like me. It will not stimulate my sales which is what is needed.
$60,000 is *rich* to a lot of people.
While working class Americans are getting poorer (there are five million more poor people today than in 2005), studies show that the rich are indeed getting richer. According to the Center for American Progress, 37 million Americans, a size roughly equivalent to the population of California, live below the official poverty line. Thus, in a nation of almost 297 million people, 12.6 percent are poor (for instance, a family of four that makes less than $19,971 is considered poor). And one out of every three Americans is considered low-income.
At the other end of the spectrum, 19 percent of the nation's income is held by the richest one percent of Americans who, according to former New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, have gotten richer as a result of taxes, subsidies and regulatory policies that "take from the many to give to the already superrich."
In his latest book, Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With the Bill, Johnston explains that the trend of government policies favoring the superrich began when Ronald Reagan became president and has continued through the Clinton and Bush administrations. "The 400 highest-income Americans--people who on average make well over $100 million a year--were paying 30 cents on the dollar when (Bill) Clinton came to office, 22 cents when he left," said Johnston. "Under (George W.) Bush, they're paying 17."
A number of America's wealthy elite are also on the government's payroll, serving in the U.S. Congress. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics reported in 2006 that about half of the Senate's 100 members are also millionaires and their average net worth is $8.9 million.
Even those members of Congress who do not belong to the so-called "Millionaire's Club" enjoy a host of congressional perks. In addition to their six-figure salaries, our representatives also receive millions to maintain offices in their home state and in the nation's capital, as well as other benefits such as free life insurance, a generous retirement plan for life, 32 fully reimbursed road trips home a year, as well as travel to foreign lands--all of which comes at taxpayer expense. And then there are the "extras" ranging from discounts in Capitol Hill tax-free shops and restaurants, $10 haircuts at the Congressional barbershop and free reserved parking at Washington National Airport to use of the House gym or Senate baths for $100 a year, free fresh-cut flowers from the Botanic Gardens and free assistance in the preparation of income taxes.
Any questions?
Great point. I made wise choices, and I did not buy high priced real estate with a crazy mortgage etc. Nothing is being done to help me out or make my life easier in these difficult economic times. Guess I should have really fucked up so that I could get bailed out. (Sarcasm)
There is also nothing being done to help people with student loans. Why not just lower the interest rates on student loans. I wisely chose to go to public undergrad and law school so I don't owe nearly as much as some people I know, but my interest rate is 8 percent. This is money I borrowed for my education, not so I could live in a McMansion.
All these "stimulus" checks come with high and low cut-off points. It makes sense to me to not send the wealthy (or even the upper middle class) a stimulus check - but to not send a stimulus check to the poor is stupid, because they will spend it immediately, and it's cruel, because the poor hear about all those people, who live in decent houses, drive decent cars, wear nice clothes, can feed their children, and take vacations, are getting tax rebates to "stimulate" the economy .
You, John, always throw in some comment about how much the poor get from the government. Like what? Food stamps? Like anyone can feed themselves on $150 a month? My guess is that an extra $19 per paycheck would make a difference in the lives of a lot of people, not a big difference, granted, but a difference. When it comes to economics and the poor, John, you sound an awful lot like a Republican, a Reagan Republican.
How about eliminating all tax deductions so everyone has to pay income taxes on all their income, just like the working poor do? How about mandating a living wage that applies to both ends of the economic spectrum and eliminate that oxymoronic term the "working" poor? How about putting a dent in the Social Security fiasco by requiring everyone to pay Social Security on every penny they earn, just like the poor do? How about you quit thinking so much about youeself and start thinking a little more about those who not only have so much less than you but are trapped in lives in which they will never have even close to what you already have?