Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: America's wealth

Comments

Return To Article
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 20, 2013 9:36 p.m.

    How do they redistribute wealth in Communist China, soon to be the biggest and most robust economy?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 19, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    To "Cincinnatus" sorry, I was just pointing out fact. As I stated before, there is no political philosophy that is greedier than another. As I stated before, the greatest income disparity occurs in totalitarian and collectivist regiemes. Since when is is a dislike of greed a liberal attitude? Can you explain that? You realize that Adam Smith before he wrote Wealth of Nations wrote Moral Sentiments. You have to use both books together.

    You are wrong, "Edgar" said that Hillary made enough so that Bill had a few things to make some money, but made it appear that Bill has been primarily involved in chartiable work.

    The hypocrisy is on the side of your ilk. From Clinton to Obama to Soros, they all say that we need to spread wealth around. Then, can you tell us why it is that they don't?

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    July 18, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    Sorry, but you just pulled a liberal attitude that you so often accuse others of on these boards.

    You accept that greed is present in capitalism yet you criticize Clinton for charging that much for speeches. How is that any different that what other rich capitalists are doing, both conservative and liberal, in many walks of life- Wall Street venture capitalism, Hollywood, etc. Many of those also work with charities and still line their own pockets out of greed.

    I certainly didn't miss the point- I just called you out for being hypocritical about one part of the argument. No one said he was "JUST going around doing charitable work." Doesn't he have the right, just like anyone else in the system we live in to make as much money as he can? At least be honest and call everyone greedy who is making more that YOU think they should- liberals and conservatives alike

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 18, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    To "Cincinnatus" no, I will never become liberal. I accept that greed is present in capitalism, just as it is present in communism or socialism.

    The fact that Clinton wants to be paid that much per speaking engagement shows that he is greedy.

    You missed the previous point where liberals claim that Clinton isn't greedy and is just going around doing charitable work. The fact is that Clinton is greedy, and is only out to line his own pockets.

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    July 18, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    Redshirt, you are confusing me. Have you suddenly become a liberal?

    Someone is greedy because they charge $800,000 vs. $80,000? I thought you'd love that because it's capitalism in its purest form- you charge what you can get people to pay for your product. Sounds like your just upset that Clinton is able to charge so much. If the tables were turned and it was Romney making that much per speech, I suspect you wouldn't be complaining.

    And yes, in the speaking business the entertainment factor IS important. There is a saying in the business- "You have to make them laugh if you want to get paid." Businesses bring in speakers that inform AND entertain- again and again. Doesn't matter what you're speaking on, those who are the most entertaining consistently get the highest paychecks.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    July 18, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    Come on, I could design a statistical study to show almost any outcome I wanted. Until we know the methods used in this study, its results are nearly meaningless, and it's useless to debate this article.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 18, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" who do you think is more greedy, the millionaire that charges $80,000 for a speech, or the millionaire that charges $800,0000 for a speech?

    Entertainment has nothing to do with it. If you are a business, do you want a former politician to speak to you about how to make money, or do you want a man who has consistantly made millions of dollars a year through business?

    If entertainment was the goal, there are much cheaper ways of getting it than paying a former President.

    But that is just a distraction. The fact is that Clinton went from $1 million in wealth to over $100 million in a few years. How is that possible if he is running a charitable organization?

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    July 17, 2013 9:21 p.m.

    @HaHaHaHa,

    "Don't go on preaching to us about "trickle down economics", when it really hasn't been tried. We have had socialism out of control for 6 decades."

    Good grief, that's so myopic I don't know where to begin, except to say that this is exactly why the Republican party needs to search for the political center or risk losing it all for at least a generation.

    @Curmudgeon,

    "If any of you knew what true wealth is, you would pity the 1%. Excessive monetary wealth is a millstone around their collective spiritual neck."

    My sympathies are limited until they realize that they can ease their wealthy burdens by hiring people, pay them a living wage, treat them like humans instead of capital assets, and stop writing all the rules to favor themselves and their accrual of a disproportionate share of the economic pie.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2013 6:23 p.m.

    If any of you knew what true wealth is, you would pity the 1%. Excessive monetary wealth is a millstone around their collective spiritual neck. Very few of them have figured out that the greatest joy in having lots of money is in using it to help others, not to buy toys and multiple mansions, and, as James put it, "consume it upon [their] lusts."

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 17, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    You could take all the "wealth" in this nation, redistribute it so that everybody had exactly the same amount (a leftists dream). 10 years from now, we will be right back to where we are today, the same percentage and the same people holding the majority of the "wealth" and the same people at the bottom. Life isn't fair! Some are more successful then others, and we don't need big government trying to be the arbitrary decider of what is fair or not!
    Don't go on preaching to us about "trickle down economics", when it really hasn't been tried. We have had socialism out of control for 6 decades. We didn't get to the welfare president in one giant step. We didn't get to obamacare in one giant step. We have been fighting the war on poverty for 60 years. It doesn't work! Poverty still exists and is getting bigger, especially under obama. We need 25 years of REAL trickle down economics, before you can start making those kind of judgments!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 17, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    Redshirts said: (USA Today "Mitt Romney earned more than $362,000 in speaking fees") You can't tell me Clinton isn't greedy."

    Personally these fees are not worth either speaker, but I'm sure Clinton is 100X more entertaining than mitt, I mean you've heard mitt speak right? This is about supply and demand, not many want to hear mitt apparently.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    July 17, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    @procurafiscal,
    "[W]hat liberal commenters invariably fail to mention is that those rich people that are being further enriched at the expense of the middle class are nearly all government bureaucrats and their affiliated buddies in government services and government contracting."

    Please tell this furloughed government contracting officer where I can sign up to become one of these fantastically rich bureaucrats. I'd really like to know how I can join the 1-percenters who've gained almost a 400% wealth increase in the past few decades, and take home 20% of the country's wealth every year. This revelation comes as a complete shock to someone who's in the system you're bashing.

    "I'll never understand how liberals can fail to see that every nickel harvested and wasted by government is five cents less the American people have to spend"

    I assure you as someone who signs the contracts, that "waste" is injected right back into the economy by buying things like multi-million and billion dollar weapon systems. The real wealth transfer that fiscal conservatives should be outraged about is how much of their tax money has gone to pay wealthy CEOs of defense contractors, not welfare queens.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 17, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    2 bits said: "I agree that employers should share more of their wealth with their workers. The question is... HOW to we do it? Kill them and take it (as the Socialists did), or teach them that they make more $$ when their employees are happy and successful... I think the latter."

    No need to go all murdery communist, how about we return taxable profits to those 50's era tax rates, which forces those unteachable unscrupulous hoarders how to share with those who have made them so prosperous instead of giving it to them and hoping they'll do the right thing, ala reaganomics.

    Awe those fantastic 50's, when employer's actually new their employees by name, before corporations took over government, before corporations received "personhood" from activist judges.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 17, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    To "Edgar" unfortunately Bill Clinton is not giving much to his charitable foundation.

    As President, Clinton was making $358,000 in 2000 then in 2001 he was making $16 million/yr. By 2007, the Clintons were worth $109 million. (LA Times "Clintons disclose wealth"). When he entered office, the highest estimates put his net worth at $1 million (NY Times "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton"). Can you explain how the clinton's personal net worth grew from $1 million to $109 million if all he has done since 2000 is run around for various charitable organizations?

    Seems like he knows how to milk the system for his own personal enrichment. Various sources put Clinton's speaking fee at $400,000 to $800,000 for a single event. (CNN "Bill Clinton has most lucrative year on speech circuit") while Mitt Romney earned less than $400,000 for an entire year of speaking events. (USA Today "Mitt Romney earned more than $362,000 in speaking fees") You can't tell me Clinton isn't greedy.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 17, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    "You can't honestly believe a bloated, unaccountable, counterproductive government -- one with a reverse midas touch that historically turns any gold it touches into garbage -- can be good for America?"

    And yet... Every time we try and trim the bloated defense budget, the most bloated and unaccountable of them all, repubs like you claim that we are unamerican and are leaving our country vulnerable. Just how many millions were wasted on the NSA's newest Utah facility? Why can't we cut that? How many more years will i, my children, and grandchildren pay for your president's war in Iraq and bank bailouts? If I run my company into the ground I don't get golden parachutes. Maybe I should become a repub? Or contribute to Bush's or Hatch's campaign?

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 17, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    Redshirt – despite my disappointment in the moral failings of Bill Clinton, I can’t let your claim that he “has increased significantly while he shares none” go without response. Bill Clinton served the people of Arkansas for more than a decade living off the low salary of the governor and attorney general offices of that state (average about $50,000 a year). Yes, his lawyer wife made enough money to support them comfortably but Clinton himself could have made multiples of his public servant salary if he was truly selfish. And since leaving office he has made money selling books and through speaker fees. But his Clinton Global Initiative has brought relief to millions in AIDs research, in fighting child obesity, in reducing greenhouse gases, promoting inner city entrepreneurs with small businesses and they are working in Rwanda and Malawi to launch projects that generate income, increase agricultural productivity, and enable sustainable growth to alleviate poverty.

    The Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative is working with the natural resource industry to improve health and education programs and alleviate poverty, starting in Latin America.

    So please don’t make false accusations without evidence.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    July 17, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    If we can't all agree that government could certainly be trimmed a bit and that our corporate system is broken (with wages slipping, jobs being shipped overseas, CEO pay through the roof), we really don't have much to talk about. It's not an either-or proposition. We can deal with both problems together. But let's not trim government in a way that simply exacerbates the pain the corporate system is inflicting on the lower end of the economic scale.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    Ernest T. Bass
    Bountiful, UT
    Blames this on "Greed from the wealthy. Take a look at the Koch brothers. Their $billion$ doubled under Obama's first four years, but somehow that wasn't enough so they put hundred of millions of dollars into creating the tea party & defeating Obama".

    If you're going to point blame at the Koch brothers... should you not look at George Sorros as well? He has billions. He put hundreds of millions of dollars into MoveOnDotOrg, Huffington Post, Center for American Progress, Tides Foundation, etc, to defeat George Bush. SO... is HE any different than the Koch Bros?

    No... this rich thingy doesn't cut along party lines. If it's a sin to be rich... it's just as much a sin to be a Rich Democrat (and there are plenty of them in business AND in Washington DC) as it is to be a rich Republican.

    How many millions does John Kerry (or should I say his wife the heir to the Hinze fortune), Al Gore, George Sorros, the Kennedys, the Obamas, the Clintons, the hollywood elites, etc, have? So... are they any better than a rich Republican?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 17, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    Re: "I agree that employers should share more of their wealth with their workers."

    Why is it liberals never suggest that GOVERNMENT share more of their [that is, our] wealth with its citizens?

    You can't honestly believe a bloated, unaccountable, counterproductive government -- one with a reverse midas touch that historically turns any gold it touches into garbage -- can be good for America?

    I'll never understand how liberals can fail to see that every nickel harvested and wasted by government is five cents less the American people have to spend, while, at the same time begrudging those who make the economy grow and produce most of the real jobs that real people do, the incentive to continue to make it happen.

    It's just too, too curious.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 17, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    Re: "Our current business elite thinks they should get it all for themselves, and if their workers end up in penury that is no concern of theirs."

    Actually, you appear to be describing our current government elites, not business leaders.

    Business leaders know that they make more money when they sell more product, whatever that is. And they sell more product, when consumers have more money to buy product. Henry Ford proved that nearly 100 years ago.

    Government elites, on the other hand, have as their object, having "workers end up in penury," since that makes them more dependent on government elites, and correspondingly, more loyal with their votes.

    Business leaders would be working against their long-term success by harvesting and hoarding capital. Government elites, on the other hand, ASSURE long-term success by harvesting, hoarding, destroying, and redistributing wealth, which inevitably -- EVERY time it's been tried -- results in workers' penury.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    July 17, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Does anyone disagree with me that our economy is upside down when the average government worker makes more than the average civilian worker? If you do the please explain how a system like that is supposed to sustain itself. Because as of now, 17 trillion debt, it is not.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 17, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" just the standard reminder about that quote. It is not referring to capitalism, but to socialism and communism.

    People should really look at the wealth distribution in the US compared to other nations. The US historically had the most even wealth distribution, while the communist and socialist nations had the least even wealth distributions.

    Lets not forget what Spencer Kimball said, when he said "Remember that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not compatible with radicalism or communism or any other of the "isms." There could be those who would profess to be your saviors. They could enslave you with their force or their strange philosophies."

    Lets return to capitalism and reject the liberal fascism that the Democrats are pushing.

    To "Ernest T. Bass" look at Bill Clinton, his wealth has increased significantly while he shares none, and only works to give himself a place of influence.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    atl134,
    Inequality in income started WAY before 1980. How old are you? I've lived through it. It's been around as long as I've been alive (1950s). I don't know where you got your news that it all started with Ronald Reagan (MSNBC I suppose). But that's not historically correct. I'm sure you can find a study that blames it on Reagan... but I know you can find a study that says whatever you want it to say.

    Employers making more than employees didn't start with Ronald Reagan. It's probably been that way forever except in societies that decided the solution was to kill the farmers and business elites and turn the wealth over to the proletariat (like Russia, China, North Korea, etc) and this fact of life probably isn't going to change any time soon.

    I agree that employers should share more of their wealth with their workers. The question is... HOW to we do it? Kill them and take it (as the Socialists did), or teach them that they make more $$ when their employees are happy and successful... I think the latter.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 17, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    "The equation is simple, we have too few producers and too many takers, and thus we all have lesser share of a smaller whole."

    Factually and verifiably 100% incorrect, the exact inverse is true. GDP per capita is higher in the last couple of years than ever before - it is a larger "pie." Further, by all measurements, American worker productivity and wages had historically charted parallel along the same upward trajectory until Reagan; then, while productivity continued to rise, wages essentially stagnated - there are more producers and they are more effective than ever before, they are simply paid much lower salaries now. Under Reagan, unions rights were eroded, regulation was relaxed, gov't spending skyrocketed, and crony lobbyism led to governmental policies aimed at aggrandizing the wealthy's share of the pile, among so many other notable, measurable indices. Since Reagan, American workers are more productive yet America's wealth gap is increasingly wider and socio-economic mobility increasingly cartelized.

    Sorry conservatives, you can argue against good, sound policy all you want but your points are invalidated by reality.

  • Republicantthinkstraigh Anywhere but, Utah, Utah
    July 17, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    Enough with the makers, takers thing its the biggest farce in politics today. I can't think of one person on unemployment that is happy and "living the high life". Are you kidding me? Try living off of $100-$200 a week with no insurance, and see how you like life. Republican voters are the real "takers", just look at % of people on welfare and accepting government assistance (hint: it aint the blue states). Be happy us "Libs" care about you people and have a president that will fight for you even though you continually barrage him with lies and deceit. If it wasn't for us "libs" the tea party agenda would be complete and we'd all be working for next to nothing, with no prospect of a good life.

    Get over the makers vs takers, its a losing argument that shows how uninformed republican voters really are!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 17, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger;

    Too few makers: CEOs
    Too many takers: CEOs

    The actual "makers" are those who actually DO the work, not those who sit at the top watching porn all day on their computers (this was done by at least one CEO of a company I worked for).

    The actual "takers" SHOULD BE those who are doing the making, instead the vast majority of the rewards of the makers is going to the very top.

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 17, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    I guess it's not totally false to claim that the government is the problem. The members of Congress - the government - are beholden to or are actually part of the wealthy class. They write the tax laws that make it possible for someone with millions in income, like Mitt Romney, to pay a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than I do, when I make 1/2 of 1% of what he made in 2011, simply by how his income is categorized.. Roland's comments about not enforcing labor laws is spot on in identifying the reason for the shrinking wages and salaries of the middle class and once again, our tax laws have actually made it profitable for companies to ship jobs overseas.

    Until our social structure changes - most likely through government action - we will continue on the path to becoming a third world nation where a tiny fraction of the population has the majority of the wealth and the rest are scraping by. Think of the societies that have fit that description in the past and then think about what became of them. Now ask yourself - Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 17, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    Roland, and the liberals believe in unlimited personal freedom of choice while believing in pooled financial consequences. Too many people are exercising their personal freedom to not be productive or educated workers, and the liberal federal government thinks the answer is to redistribute the bread/money of the laborer to soften the consequences of the choice to be idle.

    The equation is simple, we have too few producers and too many takers, and thus we all have lesser share of a smaller whole. If those who seek the bread of others would instead seek to be productive, we would all be better off.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    @2 bit
    "If you're really looking for what went wrong... might you not look at Progressive Agenda?"

    Wealth inequality started its upward trend in the early 1980s... so... Reagan's a progressive? I don't think so.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    @high school fan
    "Government policies prevent the middle class from accumulating any wealth."

    You expect me to believe that CEO pay is many times higher than that of basic worker pay in this nation only... because of the gov't? How does that work?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    This is not about socialism or about government redistribution of wealth. President Eisenhower once gave a speech in which he stated that the greatness of American capitalism relied on the fact that an average worker could buy a nice house, and a nice car, and send his kids to college on his income alone. That situation existed because the business elite in this country realized that it was in their own long term interest for their workers to be prosperous.

    Our current business elite thinks they should get it all for themselves, and if their workers end up in penury that is no concern of theirs. We simply can't have a stable society in which a large number of workers are unable to make a decent living.

    President Eisenhower also stated that the capitalist countries that were ripe for communist takeover were those in which a tiny fraction of the country controlled all the wealth and the workers did not share in the prosperity. That describes the U.S. today.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    Maverick and Sentinel,
    I know Reagan is your boogy-man, but he didn't invent Capitalism.

    Capitalism didn't start with Reagan, and it isn't the problem today. Capitalism and the liberty to engage in it... is the engine that made America prosperous in the 20th century. If you're really looking for what went wrong... might you not look at Progressive Agenda? I mean that's what came along about the time our trajectory started to change.

    I don't have proof, but like when I'm debugging software problems... It sometimes helps to look at what changed about the time the bad behavior started happening. I'm just sayin...
    ----------

    LDS Liberal

    I agree that, "communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty".

    Equal distribution is ideal. And ours is WAY out of wack today. But the fix is NOT Government Redistribution of Wealth.

    I think LDS leaders would agree with me on that. Google "Ezra Taft Benson speech on Socialism" (If you think LDS leaders are OK with Socialism, and government redistribution of wealth).

    They would use voluntary programs like fast_offerings, charity, etc, not Government force.

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    July 17, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    Simple. More and more people are shifting towards government welfare and less towards creating their own wealth. After all, creating your own wealth takes time, discipline and a lot of effort. That is just not very appealing to a lot of people these days. In today's instant gratification world, if they can't have a million dollars by 5PM delivered to their home, they arent interested. No one will get rich living off welfare. Blaming others for your lack of wealth is reckless at best. Quite frankly, the lack of accountability is one of the primary problems in this country. It is always someone elses fault. 86% of millionaires in the US are self-made. So, it can happen, most people are just too lazy.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    July 17, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    If the rich aren't dependent upon the government then why do they spend so much money bribing errr lobbying?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 17, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    Q: So what happened to all that wealth?

    A: Ronald Reagan.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    July 17, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    Mountanman,

    Neither trickle-down nor trickle-up economics works well. The only realistic solution to our economic inequality is for businesses to share more of the profit and the capital with those who actually produce and sell the products and create the wealth. Sharing ownership with the workers would address the cause of the problem. Redistribution through taxation doesn't work well because the wealthy can always find (or buy) new loopholes in the tax code, and, anyway, it just makes Republicans mad.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 17, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Nice letter, Roland.

    high school fan: What country did you say you lived in? It certainly isn't the U.S.

    Mman: Way to cherry pick one statistic out of a million. Study after study reports that wealth is steadily accumulating at the top and the divide between rich and poor is widening (and has been since Reagan's implementation of supply-side and trickle-down economics). Perhaps there are fewer millionaires because so much wealth is going to the billionaires. But as a group, millionaires have done quite well, thank you.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 17, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Greed from the wealthy.
    Take a look at the Koch brothers. Their $billion$ doubled under Obama's first four years, but somehow that wasn't enough so they put hundred of millions of dollars into creating the tea party & defeating Obama.
    The middle class used to have money then in the 80s the rules were changed for banks and wall street giving the wealthy all the breaks.
    The US may recover but only after it gets worse.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 17, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    @ LDS Liberal. Trickle down prosperity is far better than trickle up poverty. Try Cuba where the only "rich" people are government dictators. Redistribution is killing America economically, morally and socially. Don't believe it, just step out of line and the IRS will contact you post haste!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 17, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Re: "This "trickle down" effect? It's just a bad joke."

    Only because an out-of-control Big Government is preventing the resources from trickling down.

    Invest [by reducing taxes, not taking ever more away from us and funneling it into that large government toilet] just 25% of what is criminally wasted on bloated, unaccountable, counterproductive government, at all levels, and the American economy would be on fire!

    That trickle would be a Niagara!

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Listing all the reasons would take an entire other letter, but here are a few: The refusal to enforce our labor laws which led to the destruction of unions. The refusal to enforce the Sherman anti-trust act which allowed Corporate America to eviscerate small local businesses. Shipping American jobs to third-world countries. Allowing high levels of immigration, both legal and illegal. Deregulation of the financial system which led to the financialization of everything in our society. The list could go on and on.

    There is no developed country on the face of the earth in which such a large share of the national wealth goes to such a tiny minority of the people. We are even much more unequal than most third world countries.

    Red State pride is apparently incensed that a working person could get a $50,000 annual pension, yet has absolutely no problem with the money-changers of Wall St. who make $50,000 an hour, and no, that's not an exaggeration. That's where the fundamental problem lies, the people at the very top are syphoning so much money out of the system, that there is nothing left for workers.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 17, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Folks, isn't it obvious what Roland is talking about? Come on now, stop acting like you don't understand.

    Roland is highlighting the complete and utter failure of Supply-Side Economics (Reaganomics). This "trickle down" effect? It's just a bad joke. Then again, what can you expect from an actor and not an economics expert? It's merely stealing from the poor and middle-class to give to the rich.

    For decades now, we've seen this attitude of deregulation and tax breaks for the rich. What has happened? Job creation has been squashed, jobs have been shipped overseas, and wealth has been redistributed to the top.

    I had hoped that Obama would stop this train wreck but has wilted to tea party pressure.

    Is there anyone left to fight for the American middle-class? Who will fight for America? Or are we doomed to continue on this path towards 3rd world country status?

    I'm sorry folks, but the party is over. Supply-Side Economics have failed. The rising tide is NOT lifting all of our boats. The wealth isn't trickling down.

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    July 17, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    "The wealthy have lasted so far just because they have enough to survive the governments efforts to get all that they have through efforts of paying their fair share."

    Actually, it's the opposite. The wealthy have lasted so far because they own so much of the government!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 17, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    Re: ". . . all the wealth that used to go to the middle class now goes the very richest people in our society. This did not happen by accident."

    No, it didn't. But, what liberal commenters invariably fail to mention is that those rich people that are being further enriched at the expense of the middle class are nearly all government bureaucrats and their affiliated buddies in government services and government contracting.

    The percentage of Americans who meet the definition of super-rich is negligible, as it always has been. But those in the next 10% has ballooned rather dramatically.

    The third most-common occupation in that category? Government worker.

    And, we know that those in the 2 categories above them -- services [including medical] and production/manufacturing -- obtain a goodly share of their income from government.

    Meaning us.

    So, it's odd that big-government liberals so fond of bashing "the rich," when it's clear that big-government liberals ARE "the rich."

    We have met the enemy, and he is us.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 17, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least...

    ONE OF THE GREAT EVILS with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended…are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence ... It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State, and National, of the entire country.

    If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin."

    ~LDS 1st Presidency

    And of course ---
    The warning throughout the ENTIRE Book of Mormon [i.e., the Gadianton Robbers]

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    The wealthiest group of Americans today are those 55 and older. But for some reason this group will have their healthcare and SS checks subsidized by young working people with no wealth and children to support to boot.
    But if you really want to talk about wealthy then let's discuss retired government employees. How much money would a person have to pay at age 55 for an annuity that pays them well over 50 grand a year in retirement benefits? Since life expectancy is approx 80 years then the present value of that annuity would be at least a million bucks. So who are the new millionaires in America? Retired Government workers.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 17, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    Roland, Contrary to your assertions it not just the middle class seeing their prosperity evaporate. (CNNMoney) -- The number of millionaires is on the decline in the United States, even as the number of wealthy individuals has increased worldwide.
    Millionaire households in the United States decreased by 129,000 in 2011, according to a new study from the Boston Consulting Group. The report defines these households as having over $1 million in cash, stock and other assets, excluding property, businesses and luxury goods.
    Singapore has the highest proportion of millionaires in the world; 17% of all households in the Asian city-state have wealth of over $1 million. By comparison, 4.3% of households in the United States had wealth of over $1 million, which ranks it 7th in the world.
    The United States also lagged when it came to the proportion of "ultra-high-net-worth" households, defined by the Boston Consulting Group as those with more than $100 million in wealth.
    The Democrats war on the "rich" is taking the middle class with it!

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    July 17, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    "This did not happen by accident." Roland apparently knows why it happened, but he's going to make it his own little secret. Maybe one day, if we're really nice, he'll tell us. Until then, we'll keep him amused as we quibble amongst ourselves. C'mon, Roland, why would you give us just a hslf-letter?

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    July 17, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    Government policies prevent the middle class from accumulating any wealth. It appears the goal is to have the middle class become dependent just as the poor are on the government. The wealthy have lasted so far just because they have enough to survive the governments efforts to get all that they have through efforts of paying their fair share. The powers to be want it all, not just the fair share.