How Spreading the Wealth REALLY working?

Those who claim that black people are 'poor' are so out of touch with reality in U.S. I am sure Jordan, Tiger Wood; Whitney, M.Jackso, Oprah or Obama will probably laugh LTAO reading that. Using the tax payers money and give to the poor freely is not spreading wealth, it is call 'Robin Hood' robbery at the expense of the tax payer. It it is just a myth U.S government take from the rich (only) and give it to the poor, it is stupidity at its best.

I live in a welfare state, and I do like to point out that despite a very generous welfare system we still have one of the strongest economies in the world. By the way, I don't agree that it is welfare that causes high unemployment, it is the fanatical Growth at all costs theory that drives companies to make fewer people do more work to save on costs, but that's another debate. As I said, we have a very generous welfare system, but as an aged pensioner, the group which gets the highest welfare payout, I only earn about $13,000 per annum, which means life is still a bit of a struggle but I won't starve or go without a roof over my head. Fortunatley we are lucky enough to own our own home so there is no rent, and I am a fairly successful gambler, which about doubles our joint income, so we aren't in any danger of penury. However, the sort of payments you are describing are ludicrously high, and that from a firm believer in welfare systems. Obviously, if welfare payments are high enough for one to live comfortably, then what is the point of taking a job that pays the same or even less; even people who would ordinarily hate taking a handout would have to be tempted to "retire". Just one final point: the rich, in general, get rich on the backs of their much less well paid workers, to the point often of crass exploitation. I have no problem at all in seeing them taxed at a higher rate. That's if the buggers even pay any personal tax thanks to the loopholes that allow their equally rich accountants to write off their clients' incomes. Lash

Post racial president...That's the first time I've ever heard that one! What exactly does it mean? We're still different races. We didn't all blend together when Obama became president. Could you post racism? Certainly not true but at least it makes sense? Should the wealth be shared? I think so and the trouble with the whole trick;e down BS is that it does nOT get shared. The money stays at the top and only $8.00 an hour no benefit jobs trickle down and the people working for those jobs qulify for welfare. Assuming they want to eat, live in a safe fringe neighborhood and have medical coverage at least for their children. I pay a higher tax percentage than Romney,Gates & Buffet and much as I love Warren, I don't think it is fair to me or my family that my percentage is higher. Also, I deeply resent the fact that hugh companies continue to get tax credits for outsourced jobs while small and mid level businesses go under. I am NOT saying we should end outsourcing. For the time being it is a necessary evil but it should not be rewarded. The tax credits belong with the companies that are giving jobs to Americans. Sharing the Wealth does N\not mean increasing the welfare roles. It means giving working Americans a chance to get off those roles and it means curtailing the coporate greed that caused the 2008 down turn in the economy that brought us to the brink of another great depression. It was the greed of the uncontrolled banks (eg. No more Glass Steagall regs)that almost colapsed our economy then NOT the welfare roles.

It is more complicated than that. The figure you quoted is not what most welfare people get. In fact very few people would qualify for that kind of money. I know that there are people in my country who will look for the largest welfare payment and then use that to argue that welfare is bad when in fact only very few people qualify for the amount and it involves having lots of children. I hear news reports of hundreds of thousands of people in your country starving and homeless as a result of home forfeiture and job losses. These people claim they get no welfare at all so your figure does not seem to work for me. Welfare is necessary to protect the vulnerable because if we do not then we fail as a society. The problem will always be how to balance the system so that jobs are protected and created and yet those who cannot work are also fed and cared for. I have no wish to return the 19th century when work was both dangerous and underpaid and people starved in the street when the unhealthy working conditions made them too ill to work. Not to mention the children who risked their lives working as there was no school for those who could not pay while the employers became extremely wealthy. I do not believe that any system is capable of being perfect and there will always be people who will try to exploit the system for their own interests. I recently read a post by a man who regarded all tax as theft and who resented his taxes going to support people who were just lazy. His argument was that people should work of starve, totally overlooking the fact that there are numerous people who cannot work due to illness, disability, age, etc. He also overlooked the fact that taxes fund infrastructure that he uses. If all welfare was cut then people would starve. I speak as a disability welfare recipient who is unemployable, I used to work before I became sick and I paid my taxes. Now I see the system supporting me when I am vulnerable and struggling to cope.

I think higher taxes on the wealthy AND large corporations makes sense if the money goes to paying down the deficit. Reducing the deficit would help lower interest rates which would benefit everybody. Getting the deficit under control would help to lower taxes for everybody. We've mortgaged the future by borrowing money and now we pay so much on interest rates that the government can't pay for what it really needs to pay for like improved infrastructure of high speed trains.

The wealth isn't being spread. It's not trickling down either. It's actually been trickling up for the last few decades. Everything in that first article cites statistics of things that have risen nation wide, even if you discount for race. Once again we put too much weight of the current economic conditions on the presidents. It's not like the policy changes the day they are elected, and even if it did it wouldn't have a widespread effect on the economy until the end of their term at best. If we cut out all welfare today we'd be in no better of a situation in 2 years, and probably worse. Don't forget welfare helps to pay for those millions of people who do jobs for minimum wage.