News-Record.com

John, Unfortunately the rich are the ones making the laws and they are looking out for number one. Most of our local, state and federal government are made up of fat cat petty theives, imho. This will continue until the American people revolt.

While I agree this administration has done more than it's share to make the rich richer, both democrats and republicans are guilty of feeding themselves high on the hog at the expense of the poor. A great many are also perpetuating the idea that poor people are poor by choice. It may be true in a very small percentage but the bulk of poor folks can't help being poor.

You are probably going to be stoned and quartered by the die-hard far right. They do not take too kindly to criticism directed at their leaders.

"The poverty rate has risen 11 percent under Bush. It declined every year under Clinton. Over the past four years, gas prices have increased $1.40 per gallon, the trade deficit is at an all-time high of $700 billion, the real value of the minimum wage has decreased by 7 percent, there are 6 million new uninsured Americans, and median household incomes have declined annually."

That may all be true, plus access to health care -- ANY sort of health care -- is dwindling steadily. But even so, the majority of Americans prefer that scenario to the horrible evils of gay marriage and lettng women decide for themselves whether to have an abortion.

Yvonne, I don't think Mr. Sexton should be stoned, but he should be called on getting his facts right. Thanks to the wonderful Internet, any average guy like myself can get statistics such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Current_poverty_rate

According to this site, poverty has gone from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. I'm not a mathmetician, but I think that is a difference of 1.4%, a far cry from Mr. Sexton's 11%.

Interesting how poverty went up with Carter, initially up then down under Reagan, up under Bush I, initially up then down under Clinton, then up under Bush II. I'm not an economist either, but that sure does follow the pattern of when we had recessions and expansions in the economy!

1.4% in 4 years, let's see,we've had 9/11, two wars, multiple hurricanes in Florida and the Gulf states, massive layoffs in the furniture & textile sectors, struggling airlines, etc. I'm surprised the poverty rate has ONLY gone up 1.4% My point is some of this is not controllable by government Republican or Democrat.

Hey while we are at it let's look at homeownership rates:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883976.html

Homeownership up even more for blacks than whites in the last four years.

I wish the N&R would make op ed writers cite the source(s) when their letters contain a bunch of statisitics. Not necessarily printed in the paper, but at least for the N&R to verify before they print a letter.

Republican policies make people poorer? What happened to the people of NOLA? Hmmmm?

I agree that our current policies do little to help the working poor. With the price of gas and fuel oil, the working poor will grow in number. How will they heat their homes this winter? How will they afford gas to drive to a minimum wage job? Sadly, many times a welfare check nets more than a low paying job.

While the Bush administration has done a pathetic job in my opinion, I don't see our Democratic leaders doing anything to stop the war, decrease spending, or address the problems that are coming from oil prices. The Federal government, Democrats and Republicans, is so full of greedy, power hungry individuals that the American people are left with no power. Sure, we can vote, but what are our choices?

I opposed the war before it started and continue to oppose it for humanitarian reasons. Now, how will our country pay for the war and hurricane recovery? Our leaders seem to think that money does grow on trees.

Let's all pray for guidance. We don't need to be divided by party lines, but joined together for the good of one another.

Dan, On Friday of this past week I heard on the radio that blacks who earn over $100,000/year are charged a higher interest rate by lending institutions than whites earning less than $40,000/year. This was the result of a ten year study. Unfortunately I didn't catch the name of those doing the study.

If this is true, and I think it is, that means it would be almost totally prohibitive for poorer black folks to own a home. If black home ownership is up, it certainly isn't the poorer blacks. And that is the point of the letter--the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The study is hogwash, Yvonne. Mortgage lending is one area where blacks get the benefit of the doubt over whites for the sole purpose of the lender avoiding any allegation of racial favoritism.

Credit scores and job stability are color blind.

Carol
The answer to your question is sadly simple. We will pay for these things through our new credit union the chinese national bank. I heard recently that soon the chinese will own nearly a trillion dollars of our money. That alone should make a lot of people shake a little in our shoes about our economic and national security.

While Bush tells us to focus on terrorism, China is slowly but surely owning more and more of this country because we cant pay for what we need to do now.

Tell me which will be a bigger threat?

And I have to wonder, if the President isn't going to roll back the tax cuts, which largely benefitted the higher incomes, is he doing right by our country? Do (all - R&D) politicians' rich constituency WANT this? Why???

Tax benefits for the rich, tax cuts for the rich. Dang I am sick to death of hearing all this whine and cry. Who do you think keeps this country rolling, the dude who spends his paycheck buying lottery tickets, a 12 pack and a carton of cigarettes every Friday afternoon while his wife is off to Bingo. Of course not. It is the folks with money who invest in small companies who provide for jobs, large and small, it is the folks with money who invest in stocks and bonds that keep the economy from going belly up. It is the folks with money who open their own businesses and employee others to keep the money turning. Try getting rid of the rich by taxing them to the hilt and see what you get. Can anyone say Mexico, most European countries, Cuba and the list could go on.
They withdrew the tax breaks for those who make enough money do invest in Australia and a few other countries and now the common dude, making a a bit over 40K (Australian) pays upward of 50% taxes and the average, as we would say here, are on the dole in some form or the other.
When the tax breaks roll back, look for the "stuff" to hit the fan.
I ain't rich but I aint dumb either. Election time is approaching and you are going to hear a lot of this talk of rolling back the taxes and leveling the playing field between the have's and have not's( and that's another whole post). Bull, when all is said and done the pols know who keeps things together and it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

mrproduce,

My apologies, I realized after I had posted that I may have been too narrow with my example. I was picking up on Hayes' point about the national debt and how much of it is being bought by other countries, namely China.

My point was that the administration's economic policies don't seem to address this. It seems to me that all politicians are in some big business' pockets, whether because they rely on lobbyists or whatever. And nowhere in government or from either political party does there appear to be concern about reducing the debt.

So my question was: Why? Do they WANT China to call in their note?

Dan, I agree you're no mathematician. ;-)

John is correct using your data that the poverty rate has risen at least 11 percent.

Percent Increase = Difference/Original Number X 100 percent

You are correct that the diffence is only 1.4%. But the actual percent increase is closer to 12.4%. Maybe op ed writers should be able to do basic math before being allowed to post here. j/k

Enough picking at Dan, I agree with John that America does need to return to fiscal responsibility. I am torn in how I feel on this issue. As one of those new homeowners in the last year, it doesn't always feel that I'm better off than this time last year. Seems like I have less but hopefully I will feel differently once all those interest deductions kick in after the first of the year.

Thanks Yvonne and others for a very honest, thoughtful discussion. Thank you for ignoring the bait of this very divisive partisan letter and giving thoughtful comments.

I would agree with most moderates that the whole D versus R scenario is a lie. The only 'us' versus 'them' (in my opinion) is the 'not super-rich vs the super-rich'.

We all know that the super wealthy are going to keep on finding ways to get wealthier. Sorry, but you won't find Hillary Clinton or Barbara Bush shopping at K-mart for their shoes. Even if Martha Stewart does have a line of products there with her name on them.

Tax cuts for the rich? What's the difference? They'll find a way out of paying them anyway.

If I had to guess, the folks commenting on this blog all fall under the 'us' label. We can all stand together on this issue whether or not we agree on the other moral issues of gay marriage and abortion.

See JP, I told you I was not a mathematician :) There is a reason I contract out my taxes. Oh well, I'll take a dose of crow on that one. You guys have fun debating, I'm taking off for Charlotte to watch the Panthers. After renting a downtown hotel room buying a few $5.50 beers, I can claim poverty too...

Astro Boy, no offense taken by you. It just seems that everyone on one side or the other makes a big deal out of tax breaks for those who do the most good in keeping this country rolling. Heck, like I said , I ain't rich but I worked hard, I invested a little and wisely, I served my country, got tore up and now Uncle not only retired me but pays me an additional sum and I don't pay taxes, at least not until I die. That is a deal that ticks me off royally. I paid them once, twice and if I withdraw anything from investment in this state I am going to pay double again. Then the dang Government is going to steal half of what I earned after I am gone and deprive my family that I worked hard to provide for now and later of most of what they should have to live on until they die. Heck , I think I will just spend it all and not let the dang government have a dime.
Yea and I agree, all the pols are in somebody's pocket and I don't give a rats if they are riding on a donkey or an elephant. It is a problem indeed with very little solution since it seems that most of the folks want to keep them in office and rolling in the trough.
And China, well the pols just keep going into debt and getting into bed with them. Daddy always said be careful who you climb into bed with, you might come out with more than you bargined for, or in this case perhaps less.
Anybody got any REAL answers?

Dan, I am no math major. However I do know that if you take 11.3 (Poverty rate in 2000) and multiply it by 1.11 or adding 11% you wind up with 12.53% which clearly proves his point that it has increased 11+%.

Now do Replubicans or Democrats want to keep people poor? No, thats silly. What we need is for government to encourage people to get jobs, and not hand an endless supply of money to people. Give me fish I eat for a day, teach me to fish and I'll eat forever.

Ok - I'll throw in my 2-cents, which is probably redundent and certainly repetative.

nemo0037: I'm not so sure the majority of Americans prefer [the existing political and social crap] to the horrible evils of gay marriage, etc. But it can be proven more folks vote that way. Which is why I get upset at the partisan and divisive rhetoric ...

Carol D: AMEN to " I don't see our Democratic leaders doing anything .... " Which is why they should all just go home. Of course the Republicans need to all just go home too.

Let's form a new party (And I'm not kidding).

HAYES: I will tell you that While Bush tells us to focus on terrorism, China - and the loss of our manufacturing and industrial and financial bass is FAR more threatening. Ya know going after our financial strenghth is Osama's stated strategy ...

MRP: "Dang I am sick to death of hearing "Tax benefits for the rich, tax cuts for the rich"

Well you're on the right track - the problem is the examples you give are "old hat". Money these days is made through financial shenanigans - and they hold ALL The Power - so your scenario of "now the common dude, making a a bit over 40K pays upward of 50% taxes and the average, as we would say here, are on the dole in some form or the other."

Welcome to the New America, we have been and are continuing to be Raped and Plundered to keep Gays out of our Church. See nemo0037 (above).

TRUTH: Hey I'm proud of you dude: "The only 'us' versus 'them' (in my opinion) is the 'not super-rich vs the super-rich'.

I just wish there was a political party for those of us who are both pro-life and anti-poverty. American is a country of many religious beliefs, but a whole lot of us self-identify as Christian. I often find myself frustrated in the voting booth. Which one of my beliefs do I prioritize when I vote? Which ones do I let go of? Why is there not a party for me? I wonder how many other Christians feel the same way?

JDR, as usual you decided to attempt to derail my point by not presenting what I said accurately. My comment about the dude and his 40K, and now if you will go back and read, I stated AUSTRALIAN, since I was speaking of the sparks that are currently flying over tax breaks and the fact that they withdrew them at one time and many want them reinstated. There, in AUSTRALIA that dude pays upwards of 50% income tax. Those under that pay scale are on some kind of public dole, sometimes called "beach welfare" downunder.
It would behove you to read properly before jumping the gun to critize something you don't know about. If your are interested in learning about this simular situation in Australia, you may go to the Australian newspaper website and go to the archives since I am sure the article is by now logged there and read exactly what I was talking about.Oh, there is a charge to enter the archives. As far a the rest of my argument being old hat, so what. The fact that it is old hat only goes to prove what I was saying. Sure, some folks make money by underhanded methods, but those are few and far between. The business person, or the person as some would like to call the "Have" that builds small business, invests in stocks, bonds, saving and other business ventures are not those with the mega bucks which it seems the "socialist" wing of the left would love to tax into poverty.

I would hope that your comment concerning being
raped etc and keeping Gays out of church is addressed to someone other than me for I made no mention of any such in anything I have writen. Nemo perhaps as I reread the post but again his comment is also taken out of context.

MRP:

Yea, I took out the word Australian 'cause I'm always seeking ways to shorten post (for readability) and because $40K AUSTRALIAN is $30,506.43 USD - a detail that didn't make a lick of difference to the point. $30K is just a peep above the "poverty level", but one can still qualify for SS, SSI, Food Stamps, VA, and Food stamps.

The point of that is don't be like others (withholding names) who get so hung up on one minor detail the main point is missed.

Folks at that pay rate in Europe also pay upwards of 50% income tax (I don't know the exact number, but it is similar) - I get so tired of hearing how Taxed and Taxed Americans are - but the truth is we're headed that way.

There is no way the give-aways from the past 50 years of federal budget irresponsibility can lead to anything else. The sad (scary) part is that those in power, those that write the rules, profit from everything they touch (OK - generalizing here, see below for a specific example).

We'll have to agree to disagree on the "old hat arguments". Certainly there are LOTS of folks that build small business, invests in stocks, etc - I am one of them. You'll disagree, but I say the number of wealthy folks making money by underhanded methods is more than you know - as Leona Helmsley said, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Here's the promised example - my wife markets to a large well-known company (to them not for them). The deals are all like this: They make a 40% margin. They set the selling price and hold exclusive control over how much floor space and advertising to provide. You put the product on their shelf, (pay $100 upfront the design, build, freight to), they do take it off the truck and stock it on the shelves. When it sells, you get paid. If it doesn't sell, it gets returned, period.

They hold all the cards - the proverbial stacked deck - so don't be telling me "they assume risk" - because the risk is exactly ZERO - and that, my friend is the current business model.

My comment concerning rape and keeping Gays out of church was NOT addressed to you - just a gently scream at how we - The American People - The American Culture - The American Society - The American Way Of Life - are all being stripped of what you and I know, love, work for, pray for, and many have died for.

Your pal
James

"(pay $100 upfront the design, build, freight to)" should read: "(100% upfront the design, build, freight to)

--- Tax Rates ---

"According to 1999 figures from the Organization of Economic Development and Cooperation, America ranks No. 28 out of 30 industrialized nations for total federal (or central government) tax burden. Tax revenue accounts for a relatively skimpy 26.02% of U.S. gross domestic product. Only Korea (24.3%) and Mexico (17.15%) had lower tax burdens.

"By comparison, gold, silver and bronze medals in the tax-burden finals went to Sweden (52.38%), Denmark (49.42%) and Finland (46.27%). (The data do not include state (or provincial) and local taxes.)"

... NONE of that is to be construed as "Let's Raise Taxes Here" .... but if the Leona Helmsley's paid an appropriate share, American would be a stronger country.

ever look up the Federal tax rates? Here's what you'll find (all from memory so don't beat me up if I'm off a couple percent or a coupl years):

At the bottom - initially the rate was pretty low - like 15%, and you had to make $3,000 to qualify, which in 1917'ish was about $50,000 annually. Over the years, the "to qualify" level has steadily dropped and the rate has steadily risen.

At the top - it's see-saw, depending on the flavor of the day - starting at 90% and down to mid 20's (I mat be wrong on that) and back up - at least three camel-humps over the past 90 years - with the list of exemptions changing like a fast card shuffle - depending on the flavor of the day.

NC has a ton of new taxes that just went in to effect!!!!!!!! The ones most effected lower income people!!!!!The GOOD OLE BOYS in Raleigh also wanted to cut the top tax rate on high wage earners!!!!!! I think the GOOD OLE BOYS are liberals that hide behind the GOOD OLE BOY MEDIA,they do not print much of this.Seems to me the democrats in this state make poor people poorer!!!!!!

Yvonne,
I heard on the radio that there is a place in Minnesota called Lake Woebegone, where all the men are strong, all the women are good looking and all the children are above average. How about finding it on a map?

Point being you can hear a whole bunch of stuff on the radio. Depends on what station you listen to. How about posting an accurate, sourced, piece of information to back up what you say?