Travel spending at its lowest since 9/11

Yeah, so if the wealthy won't spend their money and let it 'trickle down' then we'll just take it from them and hand it out ourselves. ;)

Yep. And yet, the bottom 80% will actually spend that money, putting it right back into the hands of the top 20%, which is what we call economic sustainability.

Sorry. Just not a fan of Robin Hood economics.

It doesn't build wealth, it just redistributes it. Going around in circles all day just gets you no where in the end.

It's the circle of life, baby!

Actually, not really. I'm somewhat annoyed how anyone who makes a fair bit of cash is suddenly vilified as greedy sons-of-bitches. But if you look at the spending on consumer goods, the part of that money that goes to rich people is pretty much a rounding error. The cost of anything is largely wrapped up in labor costs, and not the executive kind.

It doesn't build wealth, it just redistributes it. Going around in circles all day just gets you no where in the end.

Gonch, you appear to have failed Econ 101. You are forgetting the multiplier effect. Putting money in the hands of people inclined to spend it is a great idea. Putting money in the hands of people who won't spend it, not so much. That's why even the prior administration---an administration about as opposed to progessive tax policy as you can get---phased out tax rebate checks starting at $75K/$150K.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179181,00.html

-brian, a fan of progressive taxation policy, even though he's usually on the wrong side of the "does it help me" line.

Jeff said:
I'm somewhat annoyed how anyone who makes a fair bit of cash is suddenly vilified as greedy sons-of-bitches.

Agreed 100%

Jeff, with no disrespect. The so-called taxcuts are nothing compared to what Obama is spending and increasing the budget, let alone the bailouts. The taxcuts will be temporary and so is the stimulus money which is only a one shot deal. So far, the congress has blown away around 6 trillion more dollars on the bailouts. Sooner or later the borrowing must stop and the bill must be paid by the taxpayers. 250K isn't rich at all.

Damn that Obama! He took a perfectly-balanced budget and record surplus and ruined it with his dirty socialist agenda!

250K isn't rich at all.

According to Census, a bit less than 2% of the sampled US population had incomes over $250K in 2007.

If "top 2%" isn't "rich", what is?

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm

$5 million, obviously. ;)

Brian Noble said:
If "top 2%" isn't "rich", what is?

-having abundant possessions and especially material wealth :)

Not sure how what percentile you fall into corresponds with the textbook definition.

Do the top 2% have more than most? Sure.

Are they rich? Not necessarily.

On the other hand, I could argue that I'm rich making just a fraction of that number. :)

Can't we just talk about cars and why SUV's suck? This isn't TaxationBuzz, ya know.

LOL @djDaemon for the above comment. (Holy crap, I think that was my first intentional LOL.) Trying to make Obama a villain in all of this is pretty laughable, especially since throwing money at banks was a process started by Bush (and raising the national debt on a b.s. war, or at least, the wrong war). I'm no economist, but those who are and think doing nothing is a better idea are certainly a very small (if vocal) minority.

Our country has been here before, in a place where the national debt was higher than the GDP, circa the Mid-1940's. No one seems sure if we'll go that high again, or where the turning point is, but economists seem to believe that this is an important metric. The percentage climbed quite a bit during the Reagan and Bush years, turned downard in the Clinton years, back up during the last Bush, and obviously now is ballooning to fund the stimulus. (As an aside, it makes me scratch my head that the Republican presidents are painted as fiscally conservative when the debt increased on their watches.)

History has shown that investments in infrastructure, technology and industry do have a long-term pay off, as was the case after the depression. The only fault I can really pull out of that is that the vision eventually led to the cultural problems of a mobile society that is draining us via oil dependence and suburban life. It's hard to break out of that (me included).

Personally, I've never been a fan of any tax cuts, let alone the top fifth floating most of the bill, in times when the national debt was so high (most of my life). Having a mortgage as my only significant personal debt, I can see the value of how awesome it is to not be pissing away money on something that returns so little value. I really thought we were headed down that route in 2000 as a nation. It obviously didn't pan out that way.

There's "rich", and then there is "post-economic."

The latter is the situation in which you simply cannot spend all the money you have. Once you reach that point, the price of things no longer matters---you just decide if you want it or not, and if you do, you get it. The question of "do I want this" is more about "do I want to be bothered with it getitng it home, keeping it, finding a place for it, disposing of it when I'm done," not "can I afford it." Because, you can always afford it.

I personally know perhaps a half-dozen people who are post-economic. They are all really still just regular guys, albeit with much better clothes and taste in wine. ;)

I think a lot of people mean "post-economic" when they say "rich". My operational definition of "rich" is simpler---anyone who can pay for their living expenses and common discretionary purchases comfortably with money left over each month without having to stick to "a budget" qualifies, in my book.

Interestingly, that means it is easier for those with modest appetites to be "rich". So, if you want to avoid being "rich", just force yourself to spend more!

Edited to add: (Jeff snuck in a reply while I was responding):

History has shown that investments in infrastructure, technology and industry do have a long-term pay off, as was the case after the depression.

Agreed. However, even I think that there are plenty of dark corners of the ARRA that aren't such investments.

Hooray! I'm rich by your definition! Bring on the hookers and blow so I can begin my downward spiral.

See, that's a great way to avoid the stigma of being rich!

Brian Noble said:
There's "rich", and then there is "post-economic."

Good stuff. I'd generally agree.

djDaemon said:
Damn that Obama! He took a perfectly-balanced budget and record surplus and ruined it with his dirty socialist agenda!

Jeff said:
Trying to make Obama a villain in all of this is pretty laughable, especially since throwing money at banks was a process started by Bush...

Isn't this just a nice way of saying, "Re: Spending - It's ok because the last guy did it too."

For the record, the last guy was a douche for the most part. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. ;)

(actually, joke aside, that was an honest question - I'm not sure what you guys are getting at)

Jeff said:
You are completely full of crap and wrong. Your taxes just went down. Check your next paycheck. It got bigger.

What about our guns, Jeff? I hear that Obama is going to take them.

;)

It's because he's a Muslim. ;) <- note the smiley to denote sarcasm indicating that I do not actually believe that Barack Obama, 43rd President of the United States is, in fact, Muslim.