My guess would be there would be about 45% maybe more if those 15 millions that would agree with your position that there needs be a control over the economic process. These would be people in positions to do something about your concerns either directly or through their ability to influence. When you are going about threatening their interests and position with existential elimination, it will not be surprising that you get no support from those quarters. It seems you and SanderO had better go back and rethink your definitions of what “rich” and “wealth” are, and think again how best to approach your political goals.

the robber barons have to be imasculated, their assets seized and redistributed, inherited wealth is not in the best interest of this country, I say inherited wealth shoudl be taxed to last for two generations, three at the most

the descendants have to produce themselves, they will ahve a head start with those assets but they should not be allowed to do nothing and maintain wealth, everyone must contribute, no royalty in this land

Perris, you and SanderO both have an uncontrollable and irrational rage on over either rich or wealth. Neither of you have ever presented your definition of either word. You both have become demagogues about the need to disenfranchise an nebulous economic strata. To do so, you will have to murder these people; they are not about to comply with your rage. If it is 1% of the population, your bloodbath will be over 3 millions (3.05 millions). If you extend your rage to 5%; fifteen and a quarter millions will perish. The problem is that you will have to eliminate their families as well, you cannot afford to have survivors. Now you are getting into the range of murders equal to the loss of life in the second world war. For what? Your and SanderO’s juvenile and sophomoric opinions?

It is highly evident from both your demagoguery that you have little other than jealousy to commend your position, neither of you have either fact or considered opinion to sustain your narrative. Neither of you have stated at which point your eliminations would cease. Yet for a wide spectrum of issues you spread your version of hate and propaganda, driving any chance of rational communications from the field. It is not a service that you do here, and the damage done to the discourse is enormous. It is in fact ignorance that you spread, to those whose educations have not allowed a working knowledge of economics and are in effect defenseless against your assertions. I for one am not impressed with your efforts at disinformation and pandering delusions of economic rectitude. Please stop.

There is plenty of debt to go around and taxpayers as I said should not be left socializing the losses.

They hope to sell off AIG’s better assets (and there are many) and come out with a net that’s not too negative — liquidating the company over some time rather than letting it crash.

If done well it makes sense and I’m beginning to have more trust in Paulson to get it done right. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Tweety actually made sense today when he asked why the President isn’t on the TeeVee at 9pm talking to and assuring the people.Of course, Bush is incapable of assuring anyone.

If he did that people would assume the opposite, that we were about to fall off a cliff. Well, we almost are, but there are some people fighting to keep us stable.

I think the Russians, and others, mostly need to hang on, play it safe, and hope we get Obama and start fixing problems quickly. If we fix our housing problems that will help a lot of people from UK to Espana to India to Russia.

what he did do is take the burden from the wealthy and move it to the middle class, that is redistributing middle class wealth and giving it to the rich

we will reduce taxes back to the rate before reagan raised those taxes”

man, that would be a wonder to see

How’s this sound: Tax wealth, not corporations (they’re not people anyway). Don’t tax the cost of living, just ‘profits’.

0% Corp tax rate (so they can get er done)
30-35% (or thereabouts) income tax rate for everybody (one rate)
$15,000 (or thereabouts) individual deduction for all filing returns

Absolutely this means a lower standard of living. Heckuva job Alan!

Today, to maintain a decent standard of living for a family, you need at least 1.5 full-time full-pay jobs. In the late 1970s it only took 1.

In the summer of 1978 (I think it was) I was earning $15/hour for a part-time job. Who was better off, then or now? Of course, we have the iPod and some niftier gadgets since the microprocessor revolution.

A lot of it is the weight of having to constantly shell out a significant part of our economy to foreign oil sources. Fix that fundamental and we’ll be in much better shape.