Why Such Unbalance Sacrifice Sharing

2011-07-25T09:33:00.000-07:00

Is it the worst of times? We have witnessed the contradiction of the US politics that makes no sense. In 2000 we were told that since Mr. Clinton left a surplus, that surplus "should go back to the tax payers". The so called surplus (which some Conservatives say did not exist) have not been there for over 10 years. Yet, the tax cuts have remained with us for all the 10 years.

At this time our debt soars and they are still asking themselves how come. The previous administration left office leaving us with two wars, which we have had to borrow to keep our military paid, with more than 9% unemployment, which was hidden by those who are in the military (they were counted as employed by the previous administration) and whose salary come out of our taxes. Republicans are against tax revenues but want the debt to go down.

Republicans in congress and in senate, get mix up about who are they serving. They signed a pledge, not with the American people but with a person named Norquist? Apparently the pledge they made when they took office to the people of this country means nothing to them. The fact that the country needs revenue to function properly does not take priority in their agenda. Mr. McConnel made it very clear that their agenda is to make sure that President Obama fails and that he becomes a "one term president". And it is the motto of the Republican candidates for 2012. While in 2010 their agenda seemed to be JOBS JOBS JOBS. This congress have not created a single job since they took office. But they made sure that Planned Parenthood lose funding, they want to make sure women do not abort even in the case of rape. They want less government regulating corporations but more government regulating individual citizens.

Now, they speak about sharing sacrifice. If we compare sharing wealth we will find a great disparity.

In 1933, the wealthiest one percent of the population held 33.3 percent of the wealth. In 1974, the wealthiest one percent held 19.9 percent of the wealth.

In 2007, the wealthiest one percent (1%) held 65.4 percent of the wealth.

In 1933, the bottom 90 percent held 66.7 percent of the wealth.

In 1974, the bottom 90 percent held 80.1 percent of the wealth.

In 2007, the bottom 90 percent held ONLY 34.6 percent of the wealth.

Federal Tax Rates (after custom-made individual deductions)

1974 Capital gains tax rate: 35 percent

1950 Highest marginal tax rate: 90 percent

2005 Capital gains tax rate: 15 percent

2005 Highest marginal tax rate: 34 percent

Average Real Income Change 1973-2000

Average real income of bottom 90 percent: -7 percent

Average real income of top 1 percent: + 148 percent

Average real income of top 0.1 percent: + 343 percent

If the top 2-5% of the population of this country benefited enough for more than 50 years to share 90% of the wealth and the rest of us maybe 98% of the population of the US benefited only controlling 10% of the wealth then it is proven that the policies of this country have benefited only the wealthy to keep them wealthy. They are the ones controlling our government. Their greediness and their blatant neglect and their not caring are the reasons why this country may default. But the good part (??) is that the majority maybe 75% may not have to care. What can that class lose? If they have nothing why should they care? Why not exhort those in the military to comeback and fight the REAL ENEMY. They have nothing to lose.

Contradictory Politics

Why Such Unbalance Sacrifice Sharing