I want to know: How much money has the Bush family made since GW started in office? How much of it is related to defense contracts (Halliburton etc...) and how much from Oil Sales?

IS it even possible to GET that information?

Thanks,
Michael

PS: We all know that the Bush family is knee deep in oil. We also know that oil companies are literally rolling in money and continue to make record profits.

It'd be interesting to then compare this with how much money the Bush Family made when Clinton was in office, and then again with how much money they made when Daddy was in office. I'm sure a clear picture will emerge.

I think you need to include the whole republican establishment in this figure. Dick Cheney for one. If oil companies and defense contractors stand to make lots of money, they will funnel that into the republican party, and finance their power for years to come. I think they are already too rich to care that much about making more personal wealth, their interest is more long-term. Also remember all those rich people that benefitted from his tax cuts for the top 1%. This is his base.

I think you need to include the whole republican establishment in this figure.

Is that to say that there are no wealthy democrats in the USA? Or are they only an abberation in the democratic party and shouldn't be used to demonstrate the norm for democrats? :)

What y'all fail to realize is that all that money, all that profit, is actually a GOOD thing for the economy, NOT a bad thing.

The other thing that y'all fail to realize is that even if you took all of the money from all of the rich people in the world, and divided it equally to all of the people of the world, it wouldn't amount to enough to buy a pack of cigarettes or a six-pack of beer! And yet y'all are so hyper about that little bit of money.

Go ahead ....as an exercise, figure out how much wealth there is in the world, figure out how many people are in the world, then divide up the money eqaully to every man, woman and child in the world. Tell me ....how much would each person receive?

Baron Max

I'll be happy when only a fraction of the wealth from the top 1% of Americans is used to bring down our national debt and pay for educating American children. Profit is good, but not if it only works to establish a government favorable to corporate interests. We are only supposed to be acknowledging the legitimacy of corporations if they benefit the public good. I'm not advocating communism, which is the slippery slope argument we always hear.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

I'll be happy when only a fraction of the wealth from the top 1% of Americans is used to bring down our national debt and pay for educating American children.

And just how much do you think that would amount to? ...let's say take 20% of the wealth of the top 1% of Americans -- how much do you suppose that to be? ...and how much would it drop the national debt?

Baron Max

Let suppose that Bush's tax cuts were $1.6 trillion, half of which went to the wealthiest 1%. That would be $800 billion a year. How much is the national debt now? about $8 trillion? Repealing that cut would go a long way towards paying the debt off, perhaps in 10 years? I'm not even considering the interest.

But if you start taking that money from the rich, why should they continue to try to make more money? Why should they be the only ones to pay off the debt? They wouldn't! So you wouldn't have 10 years to pay if off. ...and then where would you be? Yeah, worse off than you were before!!!

Baron Max

But if you start taking that money from the rich, why should they continue to try to make more money?

Man, that's hilarious. That's like saying if you start taking crack/cigarettes/alcohol away from people, why should/would they continue to smoke/drink it? It's cause they're power-hungry and it's addictive!

Like the rich would stop trying to gain money and power.. lol..

- N

But if you start taking that money from the rich, why should they continue to try to make more money? Why should they be the only ones to pay off the debt? They wouldn't! So you wouldn't have 10 years to pay if off. ...and then where would you be? Yeah, worse off than you were before!!!

Baron MaxYou know, I hear this all the time. I can only imagine that in a couple hundred years time this sort of thinking eventuates in an upper class of Lords who own everything and on whose land surfs toil. I wonder when private property ownership will end in the States? Will it?

Anyway, AU has decent minimum wage 12.50 - 15.00/hour + free health care + AU taxes the rich heavily and guess what – It’s one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

But lets take this further. Why have free schooling? Why should MY money pay for YOUR kid to go to school? It’s my God Damn money! I’ll pay for mine … you pay for yours. And don’t give me this crap about – “It’s good for society”. So is free healthcare – we don’t have that now do we? We don’t have free University do we? No. So why the big give away. Hell most Citizens can’t find America on the Globe, don’t know all 50 States + Capital, it’s obviously not working.

Oh yeah, why this minimum wage BS too? Let the market determine the wage! Right?

No free school
No free medical
No minimum wage
No free Uni

Michael

PS: I read that some High Schools have TV’s with Ads running between class sessions? Is THAT true? Wow, crazy? It wasn't like that when I was there.

Is that to say that there are no wealthy democrats in the USA? Or are they only an abberation in the democratic party and shouldn't be used to demonstrate the norm for democrats? :)So what? You make it sound like it's wrong of me to even WANT to get the info? What's wrong with wanting to know the information?

I really do want to know if that information is available.

Is it?

And is it wrong to want to know it?!?

Michael

Why the hatred of the rich? Do you all feel threatened by wealth, by power, by intellect, by snobbery? The rich have no business looking out for anyone because they are not obligated to. They have rights just as "we" do. They are in a superior position because they made the moves to get within those positions by being smarter, more efficient, more calulating, more daring than others.

Egalitarians can't stand such notions because it doesn't conform to their concept of a perfect society: one without class distinctions (boy, doesn't that sound familiar?).

You may speak about how one in the upper class should donate money to charity or school but I'm curious to know how much money you middle-lower class posters have donated. I personally donate money to wildlife conservation, but nobody put a gun to my head and forced me to.

The road to disaster is paved with good intentions: resent of the rich can often lead to great disaster, as history has all too often shown.

The other thing that y'all fail to realize is that even if you took all of the money from all of the rich people in the world, and divided it equally to all of the people of the world, it wouldn't amount to enough to buy a pack of cigarettes or a six-pack of beer! And yet y'all are so hyper about that little bit of money.

Thre's about 6 trillion in the US, me thinks, and about 6 billion in the world. With the US's wealth, we could divvy it up and everyone would get 100 dollars. Thats a lot of beer.

Baron Max:

What y'all fail to realize is that all that money, all that profit, is actually a GOOD thing for the economy, NOT a bad thing.

How do you determine that? I might possibly agree with you if the aristocrats paid tax, but they usually don't. Rich fat cats hire accountants, who find loopholes in the tax laws, which allows them to weasel out of paying tax.

Rich fat cats hire accountants, who find loopholes in the tax laws, which allows them to weasel out of paying tax.

But where did those "loopholes" come from? It's in the tax laws, and it's perfectly legal ...anyone can use them if they know how. Ye're condemning the rich for being legal!!! If you must condemn someone, please condemn the people who wrote and approved the tax codes ....not the people who use them!

I might possibly agree with you if the aristocrats paid tax, but they usually don't.

That's just a popular misconception. The rich do, in fact, pay taxes. If you really think otherwise, please provide some solid evidence of it. In fact, as I see it, just that misconception probably causes the tax people to review their tax forms more closely.

The rich are always blamed for the plight of the poor, yet in one of the previous posts, it was noted that dividing all the money in the world equally would only amount to about $100. Surely you don't think that that ONE TIME payment would do any good for anyone? But rich people spend lots of money, trickling down the wealth to store-, shop-owners all over the country and world. Yes, it's good for the economy to have rich people.

Baron Max

Baron Max:

But where did those "loopholes" come from? It's in the tax laws, and it's perfectly legal

I'm not disputing that...


...anyone can use them if they know how.

The problem is that the layman does not know the details of taxation law, through no fault of their own. Accountants are the professionals in the area of taxation law. Only the rich can afford decent accountants.


Ye're condemning the rich for being legal!!!

I'm not 'condemning' them. I'm pointing out that the rich usually do not contribute to the economy, because they evade paying tax (even if it is done legally).


If you must condemn someone, please condemn the people who wrote and approved the tax codes ....not the people who use them!

The people who wrote the tax codes, and the people who abuse the loopholes, are often one and the same.


The rich are always blamed for the plight of the poor,

True. I don't agree that the rich are ALWAYS to blame. But capitalism definitely does create inequality.


That's just a popular misconception. The rich do, in fact, pay taxes. If you really think otherwise, please provide some solid evidence of it.

You probably live in America. Kerry Packer, Australia's richest man, only paid a dollar in tax for multiple years of income. You might find this interesting: http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/tax-o15.shtml

Quite simply, the very rich can hire professional lawyers and accountants to discover loopholes in the law to make them even richer. Whereas plebs such as Baron Max and myself have to pay through the nose. And where does that tax money go, I wonder?

I'm not 'condemning' them. I'm pointing out that the rich usually do not contribute to the economy, because they evade paying tax (even if it is done legally)., Mountainhare

How true this statement has become. Here are a couple articles about the percent corporations pay towards taxes....

http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/

The GAO report showed that 61 percent of US corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1996 through 2000, a period of rapid economic growth and rising corporate profits.

Foreign-owned companies fared better in some respects than their US-based competitors. The report found that 71 percent of foreign-controlled corporations paid no taxes on their US income, while 89 percent had liabilities of less than 5 percent of their income.

Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934).

The share that corporate tax revenues comprise of total federal tax revenues also has collapsed, falling from an average of 28 percent of federal revenues in the 1950s and 21 percent in the 1960s to an average of about 10 percent since the 1980s.


Unfortunately, there are even some tax laws written on the federal level that were created for specific corporations to avoid paying their fair share. SBC, for instance, has not paid taxes for 5 years, though they continue to show profit and expand.

When corporations buy out politicians, whether legal or not, it stretches the idea of fairness when it comes to tax law. Neither the Democratic or Republican party seem to give a damn either way.

Clinton, for example, allowed music companys to set up virtual monopolies, which is why we are endlessly subjected to listening to Hillary Duff and Brittany on every radio station. Partisan arguments mean nothing when it comes to this topic....

Well, folks, all I got to say is ....Who put all those politicians into office?

And if you're answer is "the voters", then perhaps we have someone else to complain about .....instead of the politicians?

Baron Max

I'm not against people being rich, but it's the community that we all created that allowed them to get rich, and they should give some back. It won't hurt them significantly, I'm just talking about repealing Bush's tax cuts. Maybe they will have to wait a year before leasing a new lexus, that's the worst that will happen. It worked under Clinton, and we had a surplus combined with economic prosperity.

...I'm just talking about repealing Bush's tax cuts.

Didn't congress approve those tax cuts? If so, just who is going to suggest that they "repeal" them?

I'm not against people being rich, ...

I think you are! And your posts seem to show that conclusively. But I don't think that the few rich people in the world significantly affect the government coffers and budgets like you seem to think.

The other thing that you fail to realize is that the rich DO significantly "give back" to the community ...in their vast spending on goods and services. That spending alone is enough to vitalize whole communities of shops, restaurants and services ...yet you don't seem to take that into account at all.

Maybe they will have to wait a year before leasing a new lexus, that's the worst that will happen.

No, that ain't the worst! The worst is that the Lexus dealers will go out of business, then the auto-transport company will go out of business, then the Lexus mechanics will have no jobs, then the Lexus manufacturer will have to lay off more workers, then all of those workers will have to apply for unemployment benefits, which the government will have to pay .....which will more than offset any of the savings realized by over-taxing the rich. :)

Baron Max

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4538509-102274,00.html
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/index.html
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/oilcharts.html