OBAMA fostering business growth? Please pass the joint. You did read the thread with basically every CEO complaining about Obama yes?[/QUOTE]
ya know what would hurt business more than anything else? defaulting on the debt limit. Rates go up, markets crash.
tea party GOP doesn't care about business, they care about winning elections and making a point. Obama governing this country is better for business than the tea party "governing" this country (i use quotes cause they don't govern they just shout)
[QUOTE]It offers the most direct government evidence yet of the disparity between predominantly [B]younger minorities whose main asset is their home[/B] and older whites who are more likely to have 401(k) retirement accounts or other stock holdings.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"What's pushing the wealth of whites is the rebound in the stock market and corporate savings, while [B]younger Hispanics and African-Americans who bought homes in the last decade[/B] -- because that was the American dream -- are seeing big declines," said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in income inequality.[/QUOTE]
Pollyannish democrats screwing their own constituency - AGAIN! Thanks to Chris Dodd & Barney Frank and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Then Obama comes along and bails out Wall Street - where the non-minorities have their wealth accumulating. :dunno:
Hey Jets fans stop sniping at each other, whites are being pummeled just as hard.
Don't let these guys make it about race. The story is this:
"Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."
[QUOTE]The 2010 net worth of the Forbes 400 was $1.37 trillion, Forbes reported in September 2010. That same month, the total U.S. net worth was $54.9 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Board report cited by Moore.
Wolff hasnít updated his 2009 figures. So we used his 2.3 percent figure again, multiplied by the 2010 total net worth of $54.9 trillion, and found that the net worth of the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households was $1.26 trillion in 2010.
Thatís less than the 2010 net worth for the Forbes 400.
How could it be that 400 people have more wealth than half of the more than 100 million U.S. households?
Think of it this way. Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home; they also have debt, for a mortgage, credit cards and other bills. Some people would still have a pretty healthy bottom line. But many -- including those who lost a job and their home in the recession -- have a negative net worth. So that drags down the total net worth for the poorer half of U.S. households that Moore cited.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE="4"][B]Wealth gap widens between whites, minorities[/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE="3"]Census data show wealth of whites is 20 times that of blacks, widest US gap in quarter-century[/SIZE]
Hope Yen, Associated Press, On Tuesday July 26, 2011, 12:10 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The wealth gaps between whites and minorities have grown to their widest levels in a quarter-century. The recession and [B]uneven recovery[/B] have erased decades of minority gains, leaving whites on average with 20 times the net worth of blacks and 18 times that of Hispanics, according to an analysis of new Census data.
The analysis shows the racial and ethnic impact of the economic meltdown, which[B] ravaged housing values and sent unemployment soaring[/B]. It offers the most direct government evidence yet of the disparity between predominantly younger minorities whose main asset is their home and older whites who are more likely to have 401(k) retirement accounts or other stock holdings.
"What's pushing the wealth of whites is the rebound in the stock market and corporate savings, while younger Hispanics and African-Americans who bought homes in the last decade -- because that was the American dream -- are seeing big declines," said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in income inequality.
The median wealth of white U.S. households in 2009 was $113,149, compared with $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks, according to the analysis released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center. Those ratios, roughly 20 to 1 for blacks and 18 to 1 for Hispanics, far exceed the low mark of 7 to 1 for both groups reached in 1995, when the nation's economic expansion lifted many low-income groups to the middle class.
[B]The white-black wealth gap is also the widest since the census began tracking such data in 1984, when the ratio was roughly 12 to 1.
"I am afraid that this pushes us back to what the Kerner Commission characterized as `two societies, separate and unequal,'" said Roderick Harrison, a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau, referring to the 1960s presidential commission that examined U.S. race relations. "The great difference is that the second society has now become both black and Hispanic."
Stock holdings play an important role in the economic well-being of white households. Stock funds, IRA and Keogh accounts as well as 401(k) and savings accounts were responsible for 28 percent of whites' net worth, compared with 19 percent for blacks and 15 percent for Hispanics.
According to the Pew study, the housing boom of the early to mid-2000s boosted the wealth of Hispanics in particular, who were disproportionately employed in the thriving construction industry. Hispanics also were more likely to live and buy homes in states such as California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona, which were in the forefront of the real estate bubble, enjoying early gains in home values.
But those gains quickly shriveled in the housing bust. After reaching a median wealth of $18,359 in 2005, the wealth of Hispanics -- who derived nearly two-thirds of their net worth from home equity -- declined by 66 percent by 2009. [B]Among blacks, who now have the highest unemployment rate at 16.2 percent, their household wealth fell 53 percent from $12,124 to $5,677.
In contrast, the median household wealth of whites dipped a modest 16 percent from $134,992 to $113,149, cushioned in part by a stock market recovery that began in mid-2009.
[B]"The findings are a reminder -- if one was needed -- of what a large share of blacks and Hispanics live on the economic margins,"[/B] said Paul Taylor, director of Pew Social & Demographic Trends. "When the economy tanked, they're the groups that took the heaviest blows."
The latest data come as President Barack Obama and congressional leaders try to reach a deal to avoid a U.S. default on its financial obligations after Aug. 2. Democrats and Republicans have been wrangling over proposals that could cut trillions of dollars from programs such as Medicare and Social Security; they are divided over whether to bring in new tax revenue, such as by closing corporate tax loopholes or increasing taxes for the wealthy.
[B]The NAACP and other black groups urged Obama to resist deep cuts to housing assistance or safety net programs, saying it would disproportionately hurt urban areas with high poverty and unemployment. The U.S. poverty rate currently stands at 14.3 percent, with the ranks of the working-age poor at the highest level since the 1960s. Some analysts believe the poverty rate will climb higher when new figures are released in September.[/B]
"Typically in recessions, minorities suffer from being last hired and first fired. They are likely to lose jobs more rapidly at the beginning of the recession, and are far slower to gain jobs as the economy recovers," said Harrison, who is now a sociologist at Howard University. "One suspects that blacks who lost jobs in the recession, or who have tried to help family members or relatives who did, have now spent whatever savings or other cashable assets they had."
--About 35 percent of black households and 31 percent of Hispanic households had zero or negative net worth in 2009, compared with 15 percent of white households. In 2005, the comparable shares were 29 percent for blacks, 23 percent for Hispanics and 11 percent for whites.
--Asians lost their top ranking to whites in median household wealth, dropping from $168,103 in 2005 to $78,066 in 2009. Like Hispanics, many Asians were concentrated in states like California hit hard by the housing downturn. More recent arrivals of new Asian immigrants, who tend to be poor, also pushed down their median wealth.
--Across all race and ethnic groups, the wealth gap between rich and poor widened. The share of wealth held by the top 10 percent of U.S. households increased from 49 percent in 2005 to 56 percent in 2009. The threshold for entry into the wealthiest top 10 percent, however, dipped lower: from $646,327 in 2005 to $598,435.
The numbers are based on the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, which sampled more than 36,000 households on wealth from September-December 2009. Census first began publishing wealth data from this survey, broken down by race and ethnicity, in 1984.
It's B.S. with the Hispanics, they claim poverty and get free lunches all the while sending cash back home and driving beautiful trucks. I see it ALL the time, stupid Puto, Americanos!!
[QUOTE=acepepe;4069353]It's B.S. with the Hispanics, they claim poverty and get free lunches all the while sending cash back home and driving beautiful trucks. I see it ALL the time, stupid Puto, Americanos!![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Trades;4068715]That is exactly the problem. There should be an incentive to work hard to not be poor. Poor should not be a deisrable state. There are so many handouts now that people choose welfare over working because it is easier.[/QUOTE]
part of the i snot that it is easier, but that our welfare system is a mess that needs to be cleaned up.
Case in point: I know someone who is a single mother with two kids, she had a job that did not pay all that well and so she received some aid from the state (WIC, things like that) when she was offered a pay raise and promotion at her job she would no longer qualify for that aid and in effect have less money that she would have if she kept the lower paying position and the gov't aid. She actually would have had a harder time making ends meet.
To me, that is a problem with the system, not someone just being lazy.
[QUOTE=cr726;4069225]You do not think they are trying to look good in front of the common U.S. citizen? Wynn just set record profits and is thriving in a communist country, but I guess that is a good thing for the US?[/QUOTE]
I, as well as my clients, ALL work in the private sector and agree. It is overly difficult to do business now. States, cities and federal requirements are a joke. Rent tax, sales tax, personal property tax, income tax, etc..... VERY VERY business non friendly as of last 3 years or so. IRS is NOW a joke. I have several clients still waiting on BIG refunds.
[QUOTE=bitonti;4069152]ya know what would hurt business more than anything else? defaulting on the debt limit. Rates go up, markets crash.
tea party GOP doesn't care about business, they care about winning elections and making a point. Obama governing this country is better for business than the tea party "governing" this country (i use quotes cause they don't govern they just shout)[/QUOTE]
Perhaps short term....... BUT we need to STOP spending on credit cards.
How we get there??? Not sure I even care anymore and MANY of my clients feel the same way. I am willing to take a hit economically to get this country off the dole.
1/3 of government could be and should be laid off, that would free up capital as we lower taxation and we will have a REAL economy.
[QUOTE=southparkcpa;4069432]I, as well as my clients, ALL work in the private sector and agree. It is overly difficult to do business now. States, cities and federal requirements are a joke. Rent tax, sales tax, personal property tax, income tax, etc..... VERY VERY business non friendly as of last 3 years or so. [/QUOTE]
That's because Obama invented all of those taxes. Before him, there was no sales tax, property tax or income tax. He started and invented taxes. People didn't even know what that word meant three years ago. F*cking Obama. How dare you!!
All agricultural and rural subsidies in the Department of Agriculture’s budget should be abolished to save taxpayers more than $30 billion annually. In addition, agricultural trade barriers should be repealed. Current agricultural and rural policies are economically and environmentally damaging, and they create unfair transfers of wealth.
The department's food subsidy activities—food stamps, school lunches, and WIC—are properly local and private functions. They should be devolved to the states, with each state determining appropriate policies for its own residents. Such reforms would save federal taxpayers about $98 billion annually. Some states may decide to fund food subsidies on their own, but competition between the states would likely result in smaller, more innovative programs.
Forest Service subsidies to state governments and private businesses should be ended. Congress should also explore options to transfer the national forests to the states or to new independent trusts that would be self-funded from forest-related receipts.
The table shows that these reforms would eliminate more than 90 percent of the USDA’s budget, saving federal taxpayers $131 billion annually, or about $1,100 per U.S. household. Under the proposal, the USDA would retain responsibility for animal and plant health inspections, food safety, grain and packing inspections, and conservation activities.
Department of Agriculture
Proposed Spending Cuts
Program Spending in 2010
Farm Service Agency $16,584
Risk Management Agency $7,033
Foreign Agricultural Service $1,604
Nat. Inst. of Food and Agriculture $1,483
Agricultural Research Service $1,369
Agricultural Marketing Service $1,272
Agricultural Statistics Service $162
Economic Research Service $80
Food Stamp program (SNAP) $72,482
School Lunch and related programs $17,307
Nutrition program (WIC) $7,704
Rural Housing Service $1,928
Rural Utilities Service $613
Rural Business Coop. Service $297
Rural Development $296
State and private forestry grants $515
Land acquisition $74
Explore options to restructure forests n/a
Total proposed cuts $131,255
Total department outlays $142,016
Source: Estimated fiscal year outlays from the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2011.
Last edited by southparkcpa; 07-27-2011 at 10:51 AM.
[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4070504]Do you really think the department of agriculture is protecting the public from tainted food? They are protecting big agribusiness with their phony stamp of approval which kills people every year.[/QUOTE]
I have some very good friends who work for the Ag OIG and they are undermanned and overworked. If I showed pics you wouldn't want to eat for quite some time.