Published: Thursday, April 3 2014 11:55 a.m. MDT
NO! how can this be? barack fixed everything. Remember?!Wow!
President Bush is obviously smarter than bo if he devised a plan to make rich
people richer after he left office. Not even bo and a full house and senate of
democrats could figure out how to reverse it.Oh wait a minute, they
are the 1%. Along with their supporters Zuckerberg, Buffett, Jobs etc.
It is amazing how we report about experts stating the obvious. If you have 3
people one of which him spends $100 per month less than she make, one who spends
$1 less than he makes and one of whom spends $100 per month more than he makes -
you will eventually end with one rich, one poor and one middle class. It does
not matter which of the three actually earns more.The more you save
the faster your savings will grow. It is far easier to get from $1 million to $
2 million than to get to $1 million because you have the first million working
for you. If you want to be wealthy spend less than you make and
invest in tax deferred investments. It is not rocket science, it is discipline.
Most of us, myself include, simply lack the discipline. Let's not justify
our own failings by being jealous of those who have that discipline.
Wealth inequality is quickly growing.Most of us don't have the
money for:* vacations to Hawaii, Marth's Vineyard, Spain,
India, Vail Colorado, Jackson Hole, etc* to buy twelve thousand dollar
dresses, and six thousand dollar purses.Strange that wealthy people
are the ones specking out on "Wealth Inequality".
RBB - "Let's not justify our own failings by being jealous of those who
have that discipline."It doesn't take much
"discipline" to be born rich like Mitt Romney.And it takes
even less discipline for the wealthy to get richer at the expense of everyone
else.Reagonomics, or trickle down economics, is still very much in
effect. High earners pay much less in income tax than they should be paying. Or
do you think it's just coincidental that when the nominal tax rate was over
90% for the highest earners during the Eisenhower administration, we could spend
hundreds of billions building the interstate highways system and fighting the
cold war, and still have enough money left over to balance the budget. We lack
REVENUE now, because our nation caters to the wealthy at the expense of everyone
else.Just ask Warren Buffet, who can hardly be labeled as
"jealous" of the rich. Ever heard of the Buffet Rule? Look it up.
GaryOdidn't Romney give away any wealth he inherited and work for
what he has now?high earners pay much less in income tax than they
should be paying - sez who? they already pay the lion's share of income
taxes. What gives you the right to demand what belongs to someone else?we did not have the massive HUGE entitlement programs during the
Eisenhower administration we have now - thank LBJ and the 1960s dems. THAT is
how we had a better budget - we did not promise the moon to everyone and his
dog. The last time gross federal debt actually decreased was 1969, when tricky
dick was POTUS and before the medicare burden became so great. SS was actually
sovlent and self-funding with a growing population and fewer benefits promised
from it.it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending
problem. Why did revenues surge following JFK's tax cuts?Maybe
Buffet cannot be called jealous, but the comments by most liberal posters when
it come to the so-called wealth gap certainly smack of covetousness to me!
Romney's wealth did not come from what he inherited.--So what if he did?
We all inherited a country where wealth can be gained through effort. No
excuses.Tired of poor people blaming successful people for their
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments