Town Square

Post a New Topic

Wealth gaps

Original post made by Ted Rudow III, MA, Palo Alto High School, on Jul 30, 2011




Recession compounded wealth gaps

A new study of U.S. census data reveals that wealth gaps between whites and minorities have grown to their widest levels since the government began tracking them a quarter of a century ago. White Americans now have on average 20 times the net worth of African Americans and 18 times that of Latinos. According to the Pew Research Center, the gaps were compounded during the housing bust and subsequent recession, and essentially wiped out much of the economic progress made by people of color over the past 20 years.

In 2009 white households had a median net worth of just over $113,000; in stark contrast Latinos had $6,300 and African Americans not quite $5,700. The Obama presidency was supposed to bring in a post-racial America, where there was a greater sense of equality among the races, and yet we're seeing this enormous step backward.

The socioeconomic realities have not changed on the ground. And this report is pointing to just how much the socioeconomic inequalities have been exacerbated by the recession and the poor economy. It has hit, as it historically does, lower-income minorities and less educated populations much more heavily than others. And this report has shown very graphically the consequences of this.

Comments (57)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 30, 2011 at 11:29 am

I am really against the continual framing, and phrasing of these issues in terms of race.

What that does is to make whites "feel" like the are better off and may lose something if the rules of the country change, when in fact whites are more hurt by this new national order. They are plenty more white people losing their jobs, falling out of the middle class, going broke because of medical conditions and no health care, lack of education or opportunity.

All these articles do is to confuse people with statistics.

All such issues should be phrases and framed in terms of income, education, culture, etc - NOT JUST RACE. Race would be handled under the unbrella of looking at people's needs and situations - objectively, not continually throwing race at people who in hard times are often more likely to feel xenophobic and want to circle what they think (wrongly) are their wagons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 30, 2011 at 11:50 am

Ted:

Do you have a link?

An extension of what you listed, education as the example as you referred to, are the problems this perpetuates. Sectors of society without wealth can rarely "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" when there is no wealth to start with.

Our society gives many benefits to those who are born into even a modicum of wealth. Without any wealth, a family cannot take advantage of the benefits that our society has claimed to provide for all.

One cannot pursue higher education on an equal footing with those that were born into some wealth. We see what happens when a kid whose family has nothing gets hamstrung by massive educational debt.

One cannot pursue the government subsidized benefits of home ownership if one is born into a family with zero wealth the way one can if they are born into even small amounts of wealth.

As some have said in far more clear ways than above: it's hard to take the steps to own property, when one's ancestors were once considered property.

Then there is the vast inequities that face all our classes, except one - the top 1/1000th of 1 percent, the top 400 in this country -
- average income of $270 million per year
- they only pay an effective tax rate 18%

We have hedge fund managers, essentially gamblers that add nothing of value to our society - they don't finance, build, teach or cure - and we don't hear about them until we have to bail them out.

They make millions a year and pay a lower tax rate on those millions than the tax rate their secretaries pay.

Warren Buffett was correct - there is a class war in this country, and his side is winning (sorry, Warren, you arguably won a long time ago.)

"New data released by the Internal Revenue Service says the mega rich saw their income drop 21.5 percent to a mere $108.2 billion in 2008. But hey, that still works out to a cool $270 million average for each of the top 400, or about 5,400 times the average household income.

Before your jealousy meter kicks in, you might want to skip straight to righteous indignation. According to the IRS, the average effective tax rate for the top 400 was 18.1 percent in 2008. Read more: Web Link "

Is there hope?

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 30, 2011 at 11:57 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I suspect the "Median net worth" is almost entirely housing related. I cannot easily spend my house, but those with no house can spend any or all of their net worth with little personal sacrifice. The differences in home owning are, at least partly, discrimination related, and partly life style related. It could be that different "races" desire different things.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 30, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Walter - yer heading down that track again. Be careful, soon you'll be defending traitors in the South again. Besides that:
- "I cannot easily spend my house, but those with no house can spend any or all of their net worth with little personal sacrifice. " Really? Little personal sacrifice? Care to elaborate?
- "The differences in home owning are, at least partly, discrimination related, and partly life style related." OMG. As in life styles of those who prefer food and medicine, over a roof? Here comes Walter with that wierd study about x-boxes - watch out!
- "It could be that different "races" desire different things." Like food, healthcare and a roof. Anything else you want to specify, Walter?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 31, 2011 at 2:19 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

One need not own a roof to shelter under it. I assume that those who do not own a house rent one. The rest of your screed is up to your usual standard.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Aug 1, 2011 at 10:46 am

All I can do is yawn..I have decided folks like Rudlow, Obama and Krugman will never be happy until they have completely taken everything everybody makes, and distributed it out "equally" to everyone, from each as he is able, to each as he needs, as Marx posited.

Oh wait..that has been tried and failed for 400 years, the first time on our own shores at Jamestown and Plymouth.

Time to go back to what works, and it ain't socialism or communism.

Unless you want almost everyone to be poor, with just a few rich left, connected to the government power like GE, Tesla or Google...then that gap will be really big between the rich and poor, like in Cuba, Venezuela or even China ( though even their 'communist" govt has discovered the joys of letting business start easily, and letting the risk takers and hard workers keep most of their earnings.

Whatever,..just keep putting holes in our boat. My only pleasure is that it is taking you down with the rest of us.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:11 am

Perspective:

Nice tin foil hat rant. I missed the conspiracy theory involving the government and Google, please share it with us! We've all heard about how the fringe right is sad that we avoided deeper economic disasters by allowing the auto manufacturing segment to keep employing Americans building American products in, heaven forbid, America!

So thrilled that you are happy for corporations like Exxon and GE that make billions and not contribute while you slave to pay your taxes. The po' folks with average incomes of $270 million a year taxed at 18% won't have to worry about shared sacrifice under the new plans in place.

Good times!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:12 am

"My only pleasure is that it is taking you down with the rest of us."

Why do you hate America and Americans?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:43 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Inequity, why are you not overjoyed at the good fortune of some? Would you prefer that no one was rich?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 1, 2011 at 1:13 pm

"Inequity, why are you not overjoyed at the good fortune of some? Would you prefer that no one was rich?"

Who said I wasn't happy for them? Such a ridiculous fallacy, Walter.

If I happened to be one of the $270 million per year income earners and I paid a lower tax rate than my secretary, my lawyer, my plumber or my accountant, I imagine I'd be laughing all the way to the banks (if I was that heartless.)

Facts show high income earners are the ones who made out best in the last decade, nor did they lead to job growth or creation (see job creation in the 90's.) Don't you feel that in this time of economic distress for Americans, that they should participate in shared sacrifice?

Poll after poll show most Americans believe that those who gained the most should also share in sacrifices Americans are being asked to make. Most economists think so.

"Pimco CEO El-Erian: Debt Ceiling Deal Will Lead To More Unemployment, Less Growth, More Inequality" Web Link

How is this good for America?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 1, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Most people are quite willing to raise taxes on others. And that 16% is still one hell of a lot more money that the average payment. I would be quite happy with a flat ten percent across the board tax rate. No exemptions, no deductions, everybody pays. Or we could have everybody pay the same?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 2, 2011 at 11:17 am

A "one size fits all" tax is the simpleminded solution for people who do not understand math or economics. It is much like saying all Americans should pay the exact same amount. $50,000 from every American would pay off the debt, but not many Americans have a spare $50K.

It is like saying there is no difference in paying 10% taxes from someone who is barely scraping by on minimum wage and someone who is very successful, and or someone who is a multi-billionaire - the very idea is absurd and only floated to hook-in the very unsophisticated or the sophisticated who are plain selfish.

What we need, yes, get rid of loopholes, the biggest being the source of income. By that I am referring to the very very rich who get their money from investments and only pay a small rate on those "capital gains". Why is income from investments and work treated differently - the rate should be based on ability to pay.

That means, for people just scraping by, they get nothing, and actually may need subsidies. Reagan and Nixon and even economist Milton Friedman supported a negative income tax for this instead of a bit welfare infrastructure. Then for those who are moving up, they pay a little bit of tax and the percentage should rise in a "progressive" way until it is at a max with people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, etc.

Right now, the super rich pay the same rate as someone who is just a successful professional or small business owner. Nothing is fair about that? We need more margins in the tax code and higher rates on the gigantic incomes of the very very rich - that is what is fair and that is the only way we can afford to have a country when these gaps are continually rising.

Then, once we have revenues straightened out we need to start applying some business Six Sigma, or Total Quality Management principles to make the government more efficient, and treat all of our citizens and their hard work and taxes with more respect, as well as do more with less. Taxes should be as low as possible, but not at the cost of the country or its people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:32 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

In other words, Anon, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Why didn't I think of that?
This is the formula of the loser.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 2, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Stick to some facts Walter, it's hardly funny how America is losing ground on almost all metrics the farther away we move from your "formula for the loser". You hardly sound like a big winner to me having to take old specious arguments from the past, re-heat them, and try to throw them underhanded against the wall and get them to stick.

There's no denying arguments by Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz and others about what is going on here. There's no denying the effect of your so-called "winner" policies. Any more winning and we may not have a country left to display the trophy.

Jobs will not come back, the economy is not going to recover, but your so-called "winners" will not really be that sorry too they wasted so much of everyone else's time ... but you will probably not live long enough to see the recovery.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:50 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I believe it was McGovern who stated during his campaign that no family needed more than $15,000 a year, [any more would just be wasted on a second TV] and that all income above that be taxed at 100%. I was momentarily tempted to support him because, at that time, I would have quit working in August. [you didn't expect me to work without pay, did you?]
"There's no denying arguments by Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz and others about what is going on here." I not only deny them, I wonder what world they live on where people produce without the promise of reward. Imagine a world where the only innovators are government generated [see Palo Alto as a microcosm] Just how far would Jobs and Wozniak have gone with their idea in a bureaucratic world?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 3, 2011 at 8:19 am

McGovern was a long long time ago, and I never heard him make any statement remotely like that before or since or anyone else claim that he did. So your point, as usual, is just to drum up some kind of drama and not actually make any point at all - just provocative to be annoying.

Your second "statement", since you cannot seem to muster an actual argument is to imply that paying taxes removes any incentive of reward from anyone. You can't seem to keep from making statements designed to take any discussion off-track since you have nothing of value to contribute except to point the finger of communism like the proverbial broken record.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 3, 2011 at 10:09 am

Walter - After getting you opinions (one notes you offer no facts) kicked to the ground by Anon, the best straw man you can come up with is a politician's alleged quote from over 40 years ago?!?

Game, set, match to Anon.

For a re-match, Walter, try addressing the fairness of SHARED sacrifice: why one class should get the most advantages over the last decade, yet gives nothing while others get cut to the bone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 3, 2011 at 3:34 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Anon seems not to have read my statement, because I mentioned communism not at all. I simply suggested that Apple would have never got off the ground were it dependent on government incentives. The McGovern statement is a matter of record for those still foolish enough to doubt me. www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp13172.pdf.
Pardon me for simplifying it.
Anon, apply yourself to my arguments, not to me. My skin is ossified.
I stated that confiscatory taxation removes the incentive to work. If you think otherwise, speak up, with examples.
Wealth inequity, what the hell are you talking about? That you don't like me is obvious and unnewsworthy, but you add nothing about my arguments. Get on the ball or get on the bus.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 3, 2011 at 4:04 pm

Your straw men get called, facts are shown to disprove your claims, so you claim these are personal attacks.

But consistent - sticking with an old statement from an old pol. How about something newer, say from the 80's: Reagan said the top tier tax rate should be over 39%. Are we all bound to 30 or 40 year old statements of others?

I am on the ball. You still have not answered the basic question of wealth inequity today: should those averaging $270 million a year, taxed at a low 18%, be asked to join in the shared sacrifice of the middle class, the poor, the elderly, to join working American families in recovery from this economic disaster?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 3, 2011 at 4:12 pm

> I stated that confiscatory taxation removes the incentive to work.
> If you think otherwise, speak up, with examples.

All throughout the 20th century tax rates were higher than they are today, you are saying the US did not work hard enough in the 20th century ... I think that qualifies as an example that makes your statements so ludicrous it impeaches your total credibility.

Of course there is always looking back to the Bush tax cuts that were supposed to create jobs and cause growth, neither occurred either.

it is far more likely that cutting into people and infrastructure support has reduced investment and those who are getting these tax breaks are doing nothing productive or original to make that money work, and now the country wants to ignore the fallout of those bad decisions by dumping the phony debt on the middle and working class.

So, Walter, when you spout off with some of this stuff, you prove it! Better yet don't waste your time.

The McGovern "quote" was not simplified, it was made-up, mangled and taken completely out of context to suit your fantasies ... to the point that I was right, there indeed was no such quote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 4, 2011 at 3:00 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Anon and inequity, would you be happy if the 16% rate were applied to all income of whatever size? Then you are just trying to justify theft. Anon, so you found McGovern's logic twisted too?
Both of you neglect the fact that, for the 16% rate, the rich have to put their assets at risk, with no guarantee they will gain. Forbes lists the millionaires, but not the ex-millionaires. There are lots of them. Your greed is palpable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 4, 2011 at 9:17 am

"Forbes lists the millionaires, but not the ex-millionaires. There are lots of them. <note yet another claim without substantiation> Your greed is palpable."

In the worst economic times since the Great Depression (also preceded by large tax cuts for the wealthy) Walter defends billionaires from not participating in the shared sacrifice of both unemployed and working families, seniors and students, sacrifice by Americas of all stripes.

Except by those who received the largest gifts of the last decade.

We're talking a couple percentage points in a return to Clinton era tax structure, where millionaires and billionaires did quite well.

Walter calls that greed.

Walter: what do you call it when all but the richest few participate in shared sacrifice?

Yup. There's your "greed."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 4, 2011 at 9:38 am

Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, the rantings form the right here are not even serious enough to be taken seriously ... "he" would make a great comedian if he was not so intent on insulting his audience and showing how miserable and bitter he is and is intent on making other people.

What some of these radical right folks could really do to help everyone would be to explain how they arrive at their uniquely self-destructive philosophy. What is the message of the radical right that causes there people to betray themselves and their fellow citizens of this country by politically supporting a system and a group that insulates itself from the country to the point they lose touch with the common basis for our country and develop such contempt for it as to devote most of the resources of the country into undermining our nation and its foundation in philosophy and law?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm

Anon:

+1

As others have said: some see us as a nation of Daniel Boone's, out in the wilderness, a man's man.

In fact, we are not. America has always been a nation of barn builders. Of communities that get together to raise a barn for a neighbor, build a canal, or a bridge. A community that builds schools and hospitals.

Odd that those most fantasizing about being Daniel Boone sit in front of a TV every afternoon watching Hanity or Beck (before he fired.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 5, 2011 at 4:46 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

A nation of thieves? I think better of us.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth Gap Fair?
a resident of Southgate
on Aug 5, 2011 at 3:24 pm

Given a population with equal opportunity and varying interests, values, abilities, motivation, effort, and life choices, would one expect roughly equivalent wealth accumulation over a lifetime among this population?

It seems to me that if we had roughly equivalent wealth accumulation for all, that this would be a strong indicator that we do not have control over our own wealth. That is, it would show that we do not have class mobility or the freedom to make a wealthier life for ourselves.

Why is the wealth gap a bad thing?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 5, 2011 at 5:34 pm

"gap fair?"

Gaps happen.

Where is the fairness in asking those who have so well the last decade (in part because of specific tax breaks directed at them, tax breaks that helped take OUR SURPLUS to deficit) to share in the sacrifice of the unemployed and working families, the young and our seniors, the poor and the middle class.

A return to Clinton era tax rates only raises their income tax a few percent. Is that too much to ask - to return to the structure of the great economy of the 90's?

Unless you think this is fair:

"Though the tax rate for Americans earning a gross adjusted income of $1 million or more averaged 24.4 percent, up from 23.1 percent in 2008, that's still lower than the 28.5 percent rate they paid in 2002 when President George W. Bush was in office.

And, the data show, the 235,413 taxpayers who reported earning seven digits or more in 2009 took in a total of $726.9 billion — yet 1,470 paid not a penny of income taxes.

In 2007, 959 Americans earning $1 million or more paid no income taxes.

Read more: Web Link "


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 6, 2011 at 6:10 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Good for them! Presumably those millionaires who paid no taxes did [didn't?] so because of the form of their income. In return for a less rewarding income, they are untaxed. Tax laws are what they are because of the continuing attempts of lawmakers to curry favors from constituents. 16% across the board would be fairer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 6, 2011 at 8:32 am

Web Link Read this and comprehend.

We could take absolutely everything from everyone who makes over a million/year and still not even cover our yearly BORROWING. And these are the same people already paying 75% of our entire Federal bill. And I can guarantee you that nobody would be dumb enough to earn a million or more next year, so where next?

So, who, exactly, are you people wanting to steal more from? How low of a bar do you want to make for your theft of earnings and property?

How about just take everything above $75,000 and "redistribute" it? How far would that go..and of course how many people would be dumb enough to work and risk for more than that next year?

Just keep destroying the economy, leftists. You go down in the same sinking ship.

I do not vote to steal from anyone, period. I opposed the tax on anyone who makes a million/year or more in California for mental health services on this principle. I have never and will never make that much, but just because someone has more doesn't mean I have the right to take it, even by vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2011 at 10:47 am

Sad.

Only perspective and walter bring up: "How about just take everything above $75,000" and "A nation of thieves"

Straw man fallacies, boys.

Again and again, folks suggest only going back to Clinton era tax rates, asking billionaires to pay a few percent more (like they did in the very successful 90's) to share in the sacrifice other Americans are making in these troubled times.

Cries from wally and pers of communism, socialism, marxism, "take everything they make" wally and pers whine, holding their breath until they turn blue.

Just for returning to the rates of the 90's.

And misrepresenting what is actually said by creating phantom straw man arguments.

Poor fellas.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 6, 2011 at 12:10 pm

What amazes me about this argument is how one-sided those who talk about low taxes for the rich are in casting the other side as thieves.

In a few years we have gone from having a record number of houses in this country, to a point today where the lowest number of people own houses since the 60's all over a corrupt policy that benefited a very small minority that now has disproportionate political and economic power to wreak abuse on the many.

If you right-wingers do not think unfairness and stealing is going on by someone, an inherent injustice in a system that is institutionalized and far more criminal and evil than the stealing you think the people want to do by asking all of us to contribute fairly and proportionately to run this country, you are deluded to the point of being suicidal to yourself and the whole country - and it shows in acts like unilaterally ramming this unfair system onto everyone else by abuse of power without asking their consent or explaining the results of what you are doing. Then dismissing responsibility for the harm done and refusing to take economic responsibility for the crime. It is nothing short of the Roman military practice of decimation.

If you think the cost of running the country is too high then that is where the so-called genius of the free-enterprise system ought to be concentrated, on making it more efficient and investing in people to make them able to pay more taxes and relieve everyone. But that is not the right's agenda anyway, just their excuse.

Do you think the German people would have followed Hitler if he had been honest and said he was insane and was going to drive the world into destruction, but just a few people in the world would benefit enormously?

This is being done by massive manipulation, and if that is not an argument for taxing massive wealth fairly there is none. There is no inherent moral right of superiority from successfully manipulating that system economically that gives anyone the right to own and control enough of the Earth's resources as to deny anyone else.

There is no right to deny someone life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness because you are so rich you control enough to do so - if that happens every one of our founders and every great thinker proclaimed such a system is an abomination and must be destroyed ... and they were taking about a much smaller oppression.

>>>> How about just take everything above $75,000 and "redistribute" it? How far would that go..and of course how many people would be dumb enough to work and risk for more than that next year?

You say that as if it is absurd and ridiculous, but under certain circumstances it might be exactly the thing to do. For example - today in Somalia, and the amount would probably best be much less than that.

So, you use the case of the US to attack a political policy that would probably work in Somalia. And if we did not think it would work, why are all these oil rich countries talking about how to redistribute the oil wealth of their countries? And why do they pay Alaskans a certain amount for the oil wealth taken from Alaska?

The arguments used here as the same arguments that unconditionally support the "ruling class" and are always violent, twisted and destructive. This seems where the TEA Party wants to the US, where the Confederacy wanted to take the US as well.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Anon:

Stay on the rails.

While Walter and Perspective may think the government free libertarian paradise called Somalia is a good thing, merely bringing Somalia, Hitler or Walter's Confederacy into it just allow them to spin off in multiple other directions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm

I am not writing to please Walter, Perspective or Wealth inequity, wither fairness - at the heart of this is a moral issue being confused with dollar signs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Inequity, again the confederacy? Because I suggested there might have been better solutions than butchering 700,000 people? You are a bloodthirsty fool.
As for the tax rate, inequity do you really think your kind would be content with the Clinton rate? If your kind keep upping the spending then you will look, again, at the "rich" and decide their fair share is just a little bit more. Already the gains in getting rid of the inheritance tax are being reversed. Incidentally, on the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks; one oil man has suggested he is willing to consider the elimination of ALL subsidies, INCLUDING THOSE TO SOLAR AND WIND and other Mickey Mouse power.
"why do they pay Alaskans a certain amount for the oil wealth taken from Alaska?" - this was the form of distribution of royalties they chose. Here in California we chose to give those royalties to the Universities. Such a policy of individual payouts here in California would yield a dollar per citizen per month.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2011 at 8:04 pm

"...suggest only going back to Clinton era tax rates, asking billionaires to pay a few percent more (like they did in the very successful 90's) to share in the sacrifice other Americans are making in these troubled times."

And again, Walter ignores the sacrifice of the many while defending the fortunate few who have yet to contribute in sacrifice.

700,000 deaths could have been avoided by the traitors not seceding from the United States of America. Keep defending the traitors, Walter.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 7, 2011 at 4:56 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Those "fortunate few" who already pay the lion's share of income taxes? And your willingness to approve of 700,000 deaths makes your basic humanity suspect.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 7, 2011 at 9:44 am

The "moral" question is one of theft..do I have the right to take what isn't mine, by gun or by vote? I answer..no.

There is nothing moral about taking from those who earned/made/produced, laundering the money through a government job, and "giving" the leftovers to those who did not produce/earn/build/make.

It is not only immoral to steal, it is immoral to produce the "unintended" consequences of destroying jobs through the constant threat of more theft, more strangling rules. It is better to let a man or woman work for their money than to give it to them, destroying their spirit.

Stop creating dependence. Let our people work.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 7, 2011 at 11:42 am

" It is better to let a man or woman work for their money than to give it to them, destroying their spirit.

Stop creating dependence. Let our people work."

pers: Perhaps you should read the posts above. No one is talking about welfare. Every economists is talking about JOBS. Creating a booming economy by employing Americans. Corporations are sitting on trillions in cash and not hiring. Our roads and bridges are crumbling.

Time to rebuild America and grow our way out of this mess.

If you think taxes=theft, then why are you in California instead of a no tax state? Walk the walk.

See ya...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 7, 2011 at 11:44 am

Walter:

"to approve of 700,000 deaths "

Nice try. Why do you approve of the traitorous Southern states that caused 700,000 deaths, in effort to destroy the United States of America?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm

> Perhaps you should read the posts above. No one is talking about welfare. Every economists is talking about JOBS.

The whole waste of time converation and compromise with the right is all about quibbling, changing the issue, confusing their terms, it is neverending ... we cannot just blame Obama for wasting time trying to "compromise" with them, the American people are traumatized into a virtual inability to react by the last 10 years.

One of the reasons we allow our leaders special privileges is so they are not compromised by these traumas and can represent us. The fact that they are using this time to sell their positions and not to represent the people proves their incompetence and malfeasance.

That some of the idiotic things get said here and not deleted are a sort of proof that the idea of compromise itself has been compromised. We would have been laughing at some of these statements and infantile arguments 20 years ago. When the public marketplace of ideas is manipulated and corrupted the government loses its right to govern. When the absurdly thin veneer of the media crumbles then comes outright repression and violence.

I'm not going to waste anymore time on a thread that is 3 pages deep now and has turned into a sad right-wing joke, it's not my brand of humor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by beautiful
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 7, 2011 at 1:39 pm

Are you sure we are not going to see your beautiful name?What a lost.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 7, 2011 at 6:13 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Hey, inequity, I would have traded an additional year or so of slavery for 700,000 lives.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 9, 2011 at 7:02 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Inequity, also, the South did not want to destroy the United States, only to leave them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2011 at 9:11 am

Keep trolling, Walter.

Someone will believe you when you claim the traitors that ATTACKED the United States of America from within were just a bunch of hippie peaceniks.

That owned slaves and attacked American soldiers, just to defend the wealth inequity of their day. How did those aristocrats get the poor folks to pick up arms against the United States of America?

The rich lied to the poor. What a shock!

Kind of like today, where corporate owned media spews forth lies like: "tax cuts for job creators create jobs."

A lie proved by Bush's tax cuts and subsequent massive job loss (700,0000 a month when Obama took over.) Those lies and tax cuts for the wealthiest allow the inequality gap to grow.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 9, 2011 at 9:26 am

"Inequity, also, the South did not want to destroy the United States, only to leave them."

Boy, Walter is really twisting himself into a knot to explain his support of treason and slavery.
His above comment is an oxymoron--by leaving the US the South would destroy the USA.
Of course as others have pointed out, the south attacked the US in an act of treachery unmatched until 9/11.
When Walter says that he would have traded an additional year or so of slavery for 700,000 lives, he is of course not saying that he would agree to be a slave for another year, he is saying that it is okay with him for blacks to have remained slaves for another year. I guess Walter would tell the Jews to remain in the concentration camps during WWII if some more of his white buddies could have been saved.
We all know Walter,, these days, supports those that hate America and want to destroy it--the Republicans/Tea Party (in fact they share his feelings about minorities). Rather than supporting America, Walter supports those that pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 9, 2011 at 11:47 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Inequity, I suppose your motto would be "Tax increases creates more jobs"? Kinda hard to believe.
Svatoid, Your assessment that losing the South would destroy the United States shows little faith in the concept. And your Abe was willing to continue slavery if in doing so he could preserve the Union. Abe was a one trick pony. Abe advocated repatriation for Blacks and in no way was he an equal opportunity President. The two of you combine envy and stupidity in a most redolent mishmash.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 9, 2011 at 11:54 am

"Your assessment that losing the South would destroy the United States shows little faith in the concept."
No, Walter, it is you that has no faith in the USA. The idea that states can leave when they feel like it is ridiculous. I guess you must support Rick Perry these days. You clearly are not really a good american--you support enemies of the state and are aginst certain citizens based on their heritage.

"Abe advocated repatriation for Blacks and in no way was he an equal opportunity President. "
Web Link
Early in his presidency, Abraham Lincoln tried repeatedly to arrange resettlement of the kind the ACS supported, but each arrangement failed (See Abraham Lincoln on slavery). By 1863, following the use of black troops, most scholars believe that Lincoln abandoned the idea. Biographer Stephen B. Oates has observed that Lincoln thought it immoral to ask black soldiers to fight for the US and then to remove them to Africa after their military service.

and

Web Link
"During his presidency, Lincoln took a reasoned course which helped the federal government both destroy slavery and advance the cause of black suffrage. For a man who had denied both reforms four years earlier, Lincoln's change in attitude was rapid and decisive. He was both open-minded and perceptive to the needs of his nation in a postwar era. Once committed to a principle, Lincoln moved toward it with steady, determined progress."

Walter, You hate Lincoln because he supported freedom for the slaves. So now you try to tar and feather him as well. No wonder you have no problem supporting enemies of the state, dictators, republicans/tea party people--all out to destroy our country.

"The two of you combine envy and stupidity in a most redolent mishmash."
Spin, Walter, spin. You have dug the hole you are in. Best to quit now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2011 at 12:11 pm

Poor Walter.

Here's a link to a photo of that represents Abe, your "one trick pony." Web Link Is one of those other likenesses up on the mountain with him really you? We know you are such a patriotic American, defending the treasonous south, while Abe is your "one trick pony."

It includes a handy coloring book for you. I know that'll keep you happy for awhile, and away from public forums where you try to defend slavery and the aristocrats that built their wealth off of owning humans.

re: your "Tax increases creates more jobs". Show us your evidence to the contrary.

Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, balanced the budget, left a surplus and a GREAT economy that created 23 million jobs. Real world evidence a mere decade ago.

Bush gave away our treasury to the wealthy with tax cuts (in a time of war, no less!!) ruined our economy and left office while we were losing 700,000 jobs a MONTH! That string of consecutive months with job losses totaled something like 6-8 million jobs lost, didn't it, Walter?

A fair tax system is part of building a strong American economy that weathers any economic storm. If Bush had kept us on the surplus track of Clinton's, our debt would be inconsequential compared to what Bush left. America would have been in a stronger place to handle Bush's economic calamity by investing in needed infrastructure, including higher education, creating even more jobs and revenue.

Building our job base, our intellectual base and our economy for the 21st Century.

Now the bushies, the gop and the tea baggers want austerity for America.

I consider them about as patriotic as I consider you when you go off the rails to defend treason against our country.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 9, 2011 at 7:51 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

"The idea that states can leave when they feel like it is ridiculous"
See the Declaration of Independence. Or was the Declaration One man, one vote, one time?
"Now the bushies, the gop and the tea baggers want austerity for America"
Paying your debts is austerity?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Read Some History
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 9, 2011 at 8:38 pm

Dude, read some history. Primary sources like Lincoln's writings.

Lincoln considered negroes subhuman, and wanted to give them at most some sort of fractional vote. He was a racist. But he did what he had to in order to preserve the union, including political manipulations around negroes and slavery to help make the war happen his way.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wealth inequity, wither fairness?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2011 at 9:33 am

"Paying your debts is austerity?"

Again, Walter pulls out the straw man, only this time as a boomerang: the only ones I've heard who don't want to honor debt are the tea baggers who hoped to shut down the government and default on our debt.

Kinda missed the boat on that one too, Walter.

Austerity measures always target the poor and the middle class, the unemployed and the working families, the young and our seniors.

Where is the fairness in asking those who have so well the last decade (in part because of specific tax breaks directed at them, tax breaks that helped take OUR SURPLUS to deficit) to share in the sacrifice?

Austerity measures don't grow an economy, only prolong it's weakness in generating the revenues that come with a strong economy, revenues we need to pay back the debt in a fair way to ALL Americans.

You've lost this one, Walter. That's why you keep changing the subject to the treasonous states. Then smearing one of the great American presidents.

Why do you hate this great country so much that you feel compelled to defend traitors, bash our great presidents and want to see American's living standards reduced by austerity?

Walter's hat trick, all in one thread.

Plus the topper: defending slavery by offering to "extend" it in hopes of appeasing treason to the United States of America.

Stay on track: we need to grow this economy, to grow America through jobs and rebuilding.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by blamegame
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Aug 10, 2011 at 9:48 am

The Maxism is right from the beginning,even though I hate to see him right when I was little and was forced to remember by heart of his theory.The america coprations are too greedy,and the communists country uses their greed to take away our jobs, think about this, for the last 20 years, those countries have been subsiding their export companies to the extend where even if the factories did not make money by making the products for usa, but still their governments give back money from their own banks to those factories just to keep the jobs, and the greedy usa companies keep exporting jobs to them,because they have the benefit to earn more and keep it in our superrich's pockets.What a sad strategy that we usa all fall in.The greed is the evil here.Max is right.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 11, 2011 at 9:09 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

700,000 dead. 700,000 dead. 700,000 dead.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 11, 2011 at 9:27 am

"700,000 dead. 700,000 dead. 700,000 dead."

Keep on repeating it, Walter. Over and over again.
Of course what led to the 700,000 dead? The treasonous activity of the south, who attacked the North at Fort Sumpter. Their Al-Qeida-like activities, in an effort to continue the enslavement of people you despise, led to the 700,000 dead. The attempts by the Nazi-like south to destroy the USA and treat a certain group of people like subhumans led to the 700,000 dead.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 11, 2011 at 5:59 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I support the right of 700,000 people to live.
Since I served in combat, I cannot blithely dismiss lives on either side as you do. I view war as the last, not the first option. As Winston Churchill said, "It is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 12, 2011 at 6:32 am

You continue to harp on the fact that 700,000 men died, yet you ignore what started the war--the attack by the cowardly southern terrorists on the North. You can go on and on and on all you want about your supposed service to the country, however the fact remains that it was the south terrorists that started the war . The south could have talked but they chose war.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 12, 2011 at 7:10 am

Walter, please stop putting yourself in this position. You neither deserve it nor need it. Some people will simply be unable to understand your point. Why aggravate yourself? Most adults understand what you have said...some never will. Most people understand how to connect the dots...are 700,000 lives worth one day more of slavery? Worth 100 years more of slavery? Most of us will fall somewhere between these 2 points. Obviously, at that point in history, enough confluence of events from ideological opposition to slavery to economic concerns in the North, along with the overwhelming decision to not let the nation split apart, led to the war which led to 700,000 lives lost. No one single point drove this, but one single point came out of it. A slaveless USA.

Well..some would say our children are being enslaved to the greed of the current population, but that is a different thread.

This is the question you are debating. Small minds cannot possibly understand your point.

Don't do this to yourself.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Mixx, Scott's Seafood replacement, opens in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 3,566 views

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 2,971 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 2,506 views

Life in fast forward
By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,477 views

Early Campaign Notes: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 8 comments | 1,250 views