37

Billionaire USA families couldn’t cover one-fifth of Obama’s deficits

It’s time to bash the wealthy! News media love to tell the common people just how rich the top 1 percent are, letting us know what kind of stuff they own and remind us that most of them contribute to [evil] Republicans.

The Daily Mail gets right into it.

Forbes magazine has produced the first list that charts the richest families in America worth more than one billion dollars.

From the Kennedys to the Kochs to the Waltons, the list is made up of 185 families, some famed for their historic and dynastic wealth, while others are simply American success stories and have only relatively recently become fabulously rich.

The staggering collective wealth of the 185 richest families in the United States is $1.2 trillion dollars and all the names on the list reveal at least some link to either industrial heydays long gone like the Rockefellers or successful brands still in operation such as Hallmark, Budweiser, Mars and Getty Oil.

And about the “Republican vs Democrat” split…

According to Forbes Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats. Not all families stay on the same side of the political spectrum — 15 support candidates from both parties.

Notice they told us the number of families who donated GOP and DNC, but not the amounts actually donated. Hummm…

Time for me to bash the federal government and their outright addiction to spending money we don’t have.

I want to go back to the $1.2 trillion figure highlighted above. If you confiscated every dime, sold every asset, every bit of stock, every car, all the jewels, the private jets, the yachts, every house and all the land owned by these 185 richest families – leaving them with nothing but the clothes on their back – you’d barely be able to cover one-fifth (20 percent) of the debt accumulated during the last five years.

Our Federal Annual Deficits – 2009 through 2013

  • 2009 – $1.4 trillion
  • 2010 – $1.3 trillion
  • 2011 – $1.3 trillion
  • 2012 – $1.1 trillion
  • 2013 – $0.7 trillion ($700 billion)

Source. I didn’t bother including 2008, and of course there are still a full two years plus to go with the current Obama administration.

This is just the annual deficits! Do you get the reasoning of my post? It’s incredible to think “the super rich” can solve problems by “chipping in” more funds to keep the federal government boondoggle moving along. Leftists can keep blaming the rich, but maybe we can share this information to ensure people are more informed and understand taxing the rich won’t help. It won’t put a dent in the problem. The problem is the spending!

Here are a couple previous posts on a similar topic. Read and share!

Filed in: Economics, Featured Tags: , , ,

Related Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

From the owners: This section is for comments from Radio Vice Online's registered readers. Never assume the owners of this site agree with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use - a must read if you wish to contribute here - may lose their posting privileges. Just because we've let a similar comment stand in the past does not mean we'll let it stand in the future.

37 Responses to "Billionaire USA families couldn’t cover one-fifth of Obama’s deficits"

  1. bien-pensant says:

    The old tax the rich canard. How about everyone pay an equal percentage? How about our Congress stop spending?
    More of Obama’s divide and confuse strategy.
    The Left Stream Media is gearing up for the fall elections.
    Anyone remember how the media painted Romney? Rich, out of touch white guy who doesn’t care about the common man.
    So, where does the DNC get its millions to fund democrat campaigns? From the common man?

  2. sammy22 says:

    Ha, yes. That old hard nut of cutting spending. Love to see that happen, but who’s going to do it and how? For fiscal 2012 Medicare, SS, interest on debt and Military accounted for 71% of expenditures. Military expenditures were more than Medicare and almost as much as SS. How do you spread the hit around the budget??

    • Lynn says:

      Congress should defund Department of Energy, Education and EPA. They don’t do anything but hurt businesses and limit employment. Congress should change Income tax to flat tax and defund IRS. They have targeted and harassed Conservatives for their political beliefs, one of the reasons why the original settlers left their contries.I think that should be done in 2015 after we rid ourselves of the leeches from both parties in Congress. That is a start and if Warren Buffet is upset he is not paying enough, he can pay twice as much.

      • sammy22 says:

        I like simple solutions. This one does not seem to me to have high probability of success.

      • bien-pensant says:

        You certainly love to throw bricks.
        In your simplest terms, what is YOUR solution?
        !

        Lynn has offered some very simple solutions. Not good enough for you????
        DoE gives money to companies that fail, i.e., Solindra.
        DoEducation educates NO ONE! Go ahead, name one:______.
        EPA has become a political goon squad for the regime.
        The function of the IRS — another goon squad for the regime — could be reduced to a postcard by instituting a flat tax.
        !!!
        Simple enough for you?
        If not, just what is your solution?

      • sammy22 says:

        Here it goes, b-p: implementation of the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations. Everybody takes a hit. Throwing bricks at DOE, IRS, EPA is not a solution.

    • Dimsdale says:

      How about the “old hard nut” of a balanced budget?

  3. bien-pensant says:

    @sammy22: Congratulations! Was that so hard?
    `
    So, how about a simple solution… like, take all of the money from those undeserving billionaires?
    `
    Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations have something to offend everyone. Let’s get it implemented. And, give me a pile of bricks to hurl at these agencies, commissions and groups. Limit their growth, period.
    `

    • sammy22 says:

      Not hard, b-p. Still wishful thinking on my part, as this plan went nowhere, partially thanks to Paul Ryan. Can’t take all the money from the billionaires, they’ll find ways to hide it as they do now. But, Simpson-Bowles had a “workable” way to get more from them. Again it won’t happen like Lynn’s wishful list. Congress does not have the spine to change the status quo.

      • Dimsdale says:

        A strong president (with a spine of competence) that actually wanted real reform could lead the nation, such as Reagan did, instead of the current regime’s behind the scenes, non transparent subterfuge that he practices now, while actively or unconsciously doing every thing he can to divide the nation down every line he can.

        Flat tax, minimal deductions, no “progressive” graduations designed to punish the successful. Reform corporate income taxes to attract business back to the US.

        As Steve pointed out numerous times, taking all the money from the rich will barely put a dent in covering current spending malpractice, so “hiding it” would be irrelevant. The progressives want to effectively economically enslave the rich, taking the bulk of their income as unearned “contributions” to the government, and “progressively” doing the same to the middle class.

        Dispensing with useless parasitic agencies as Lynn pointed out could also be started “with a pen and a phone”.

        But wishing for a strong Øbama that though of the country before himself is, as you say, wishful thinking.

      • Lynn says:

        If I have learned anything from this administration, it is that, it asks for outrageous “solutions”. They don’t give an inch, if they can’t get what they want they ask for more. Then demonize anyone who disagrees. I just find it hard to demonize, but I still stand by my “solution”. But way unfair to blame Paul Ryan, President Obama did not stand by Simpson-Bowles. http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/02/27/the-real-reason-obama-wouldnt-embrace-simpson-bowles/

      • sammy22 says:

        I read the whole article, Lynn. The author also says that “I do agree with Ezra that Simpson-Bowles would have failed with or without the President’s support.”
        Blaming Pres. Obama is easier than taking to task all the 500 plus people whose task is to legislate.

      • Dimsdale says:

        Then it certainly behooved him to have supported it and at least *looked* like he gave a tinker’s damn. Would have made a nice photo op; you know, the kind he dislikes so much (pardon my laughing)? By ignoring it, he effectively gutted it.

      • sammy22 says:

        Dims, if he supported it, he would have been lambasted for it anyway. As to the sainted Pres. Reagan, he had support from the, dare I say, the liberal Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill (remember that?). Quite a different guy form the current Speaker.

      • Lynn says:

        I was going to let you get away with it, but no more. Will you blame President Obama for anything? He is the President, he gets to talk to that idiot Reid and John Boehner and get them to back a Simpson- Bowles bipartisan recommendation that HE asked for. No other President in the history of America asks for good men to work hours coming up with recommendations and then walks away. At the very least he should insist Congress work to improve the work.

      • sammy22 says:

        Lynn, no need to let me get away with anything. You might consider
        reading my posts a bit more carefully. I have blamed Pres. Obama for many things in the past and I also blame him for not having the “b..ls” to stand up to Congress and get it to do its job. I blame him for not backing Simpson-Bowles too. But, all I read from the likes of Dims, b-p etc. is that anything he does or does not do is bad by definition.

      • bien-pensant says:

        Understand that my dislike is not personal — I don’t know him to dislike him. I do dislike his policies, his performance and how he uses and misuses the office of president.
        What do you like about Obama?

      • Dimsdale says:

        Sammy: at least he would have been lambasted (probably mostly from his fellow dems) for doing something *positive* for the country, rather than the Krugmanesque tailspin he has us on now. He would have been able to say “well, I tried”, but his upbringing and lack of economic “cashews” (as Jim would put it) prevented him from even doing that.

      • sammy22 says:

        “tailspin he has us on now”? Come, Dims, you still reading the news from 2009?

      • bien-pensant says:

        Tailspin is putting it mildly.
        The Obama regime is more like a drunk lurching from one debacle to the next. All with no clue about what just happened or without any recognition of what its responsibilities are.
        I would borrow from the Laurel and Hardy movie, “Another Fine Mess.” That seems to be the working title of this bunch.
        ****
        Clinton has a mistress code-named by the Secret Service as, “Energizer!” How French!

        What a fine mess these democrats have gotten us into! And keep getting us into.

      • sammy22 says:

        Many words, but where is the beef, b-p? Here are some facts in the US I live in: DJA at 17000 (6600 in ’09), US deficit $492B ($1413B in ’09), unemployment where I live is less than 5% and so on…My IRA is worth now more than it was in ’09, and the house I bought in 2011 is worth more now than what I paid. I’ll take 2014 over 2009 (last Bush year) any day. Where do you guys live??

      • Dimsdale says:

        No, Sammy, the news from this week, you know, the news that relates how unemployment figures that show the real (U-6) unemployment figures (http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt13q4.htm), and how many people have just plain given up on finding work. The news that tells us that Microsoft is going to lay off 18K employees (while Bill Gates tells us we are short of tech workers and need more H6 visas). The stock market is overheated from all the “cheap” money that Øbama is printing and the low interest rates. The news that tells us about the seventh “summer of recovery”. The news that tells us that the job marked is a crapshoot for new college graduates. The news that tells us about the influx our feckless prez caused with his unilateral passage of his feel good Dreamer (nightmare for citizens) act that will inundate unwilling communities and the country as a whole.

        You still didn’t explain why Øbama, with nothing to lose by supporting the Simpson Bowles plan you like, couldn’t seem to bring himself to do it.

      • Dimsdale says:

        And don’t forget that the so called “Bush recession” started when the Dems took over Congress in Jan 2007.

        And all that “unemployment”? Part time jobs make up the bulk. Pretending a half job is a real job is not leading. The stock market is overheated because Øbamanomics are pumping more than $2trillion into the market to produce a GDP that is unable to produce enough jobs to cover new graduates entering the workplace. Any money you have in savings is making squat in interest, likely offsetting a part of your 401K gains. The hikes in the price of fuel, food and other products? That’s the hidden inflation. 2009 is looking better now! I guess if you don’t eat anything or have to drive, that’s okay. And wait until the politically delayed Øbamacare employer mandate hits in 2015 (maybe sooner unless the gov’t threatens insurance agencies not to release new rates until after the elections).

        But hey, as long as you are living in Fat City, everything is fine.

      • sammy22 says:

        My, oh my. So much rain on my parade. But guess what? I have taken measures to stay dry. The future is yet to come w/ who knows what consequences. Which things on your list(s) are really affecting you? You might consider taking care of those rather than trying to solve problems you cannot solve.

      • Dimsdale says:

        In other words, you have no answer to my response to your statement that everything is peachy keen, right?

    • bien-pensant says:

      So… ?????
      You sound like a real capitalist. I am, too.
      Point A: Let Yellin, the current Fed chief, withdraw the BILLIONS that the US government is putting into the bond, and subsequently, the stock market and that 17,000 DJIA will deflate like, you fill in the metaphor. Money may be amoral, but investors aren’t.
      Point B: I’m glad your house is worth more. Proves my point from previously about home ownership. There is hope for me when selling becomes a priority. By the way, if the DOW goes south rapidly, housing will not be far behind. And, oh, you need a fully motivated buyer. Otherwise, you could have a nice house forever. Turns around fast.
      Point C:You want to blow the Obama horn over the deficit? Is there even a budget? LOL. Hate to tell you, but it is the FEDERAL DEBT ~$18 BILLION that is the real problem. Debt service is huge.
      Point D: The unemployment number is so soft and massaged that it isn’t real. So many people have QUIT looking for work. You’ll have to talk about something like the U6 to even begin.
      Point E: All of these statistics are paper figures. Why are you even bringing them up? Is this the old obfuscate and not answer the question routine that you are so good at?
      Point
      F: Again, what do you like…

      • bien-pensant says:

        C: should read …~$TRILLIONS… but sammy already knew that. It’s a thousand BILLIONS, BTW.
        F: Again, what do you like about the Obama presidency? His foreign policy… Euro, Africa, Russia, China? How about the Latin American Policy? Got any warm and fuzzies about the current and escalating border invasion? Let’s go domestic… IRS, Benghazi stonewalling, Fast and Furious, DOJ with Holder’s contempt of Congress, the VA, AP telephone records, HHS corruption, Census Bureau manipulations, NSA spying, or Bowe Bergdahl-Taliban exchange scandals.
        — how far do you want to go? Here’s easy: vacations, fundraisers and golf. This regime is scandal plagued and it has a Midas-like touch for failure! Remenber Solyndra and $90 Billion wasted by Obama on green (crony) projects? And you want to coo about how well off YOU are because of Obama?
        You can’t see or admit just what a destructive presidency Obama has foisted on The United States of America. God help us!

    • sammy22 says:

      And, BTW Dims. U-3 is the figure for unemployment that has been reported since time immemorial, until the anti-Administration forces have decided that quoting U-6 fit their agenda better.

    • Dimsdale says:

      And that is something with which I loudly have disagreed with. Regardless of who uses it, it masks too many important factors; in this case, the aforementioned high number of part time hires. It is as accurate as calling a car yellow; it could be a Yugo or a Ferrari. It is also the way the liberals fondly mask the illegal alien problem with the general word “immigrants”. Just pure dishonesty. I am sure the Dems were able to use the U-6 numbers as well when criticizing Bush, but they did not have the hideous part time numbers to use like the ones Øbama tries to pretend are so great.

      And by the way, Pelosi and others were very fond of saying that Bush’s jobs record was “the worst since the Great Depression” when it was at 4.4%. I guess we have a new winner with Øbama! Of course, you won’t hear it from Pelosi et al. Everything is politically relative, apparently.

  4. bien-pensant says:

    Simpson-Bowles is, needlessly, very complex which is probably what doomed it to being an historical footnote. It was created by lawyers and accountant types who know that the more complex something is the more loopholes can be created in it later.
    It is a symptom of just how staggeringly large and out-of-control the government bureaucracy is. It is incomprehensibly huge! Attempting to do anything to even slow growth invites a NIMBY mentality, meaning: cut that program, not mine! Trying to discuss term-limits rationally gets the same response.
    `
    But, the real question here is, can we stay on topic?
    For all of the wealth billionaires have combined, it wouldn’t affect the federal budget deficit very much; applying all that confiscated money to the national debt would do very little to effect the almost $18 trillion amount. Tax the rich is a class warfare technique that this regime has always resorted to even though it is wholly unworkable and unfair.

  5. sammy22 says:

    OK, stay on topic: taking all the billionaire’s money will not affect the federal budget deficit much. We’ve read this before. Now what? Don’t like Simpson-Bowles? Too bad.

    • Dimsdale says:

      I’m sorry, but who ignored the recommendations of that commission (after he created it)? Øbama, you say?

      Weak, feckless and incompetent is no way to run a presidency. He has really squandered his “first black president” good will.

  6. Lynn says:

    Ok,Steve, sorry, I do always get off subject. Billionaire USA families could’t cover one-fifth of Obama’s deficits. How could anyone want to take away all of their money anyway?

    • bien-pensant says:

      That “anyone” would be democrats, you know, liberals, s*cialists, progressives, leftists, and statists, those folks who covet everybody’s money, everyone else except themselves and their family, friends/cronies.
      It really is a sham that they advance a class-division strategy they know could never get implemented. “Hate the rich” is a campaign slogan.They really want to be one of the rich. Until then, they will use it as a campaign talking point (to spread their division strategy, false meme and win-at-all-costs mentality.

  7. Lynn says:

    I don’t even know if I am on subject or not anymore. But, I am tired of hearing Liberals say that there is no problem with deficits and huge debt. There is. Spinners & political leeches of both parties never read history or care. When I took Latin, I learned more history than in any history class. There we read the Romans real words.Julius Caesar, Cicero, Plutarch and Marcus Aurelius. Ultimately it was the debt that brought Rome down. The citizens demanded more and more circuses, food and pleasure. Caesars led to obscene Emperors who plundered the riches of Rome and learned that they needed to keep the citizens from rebelling and rioting unless they were given more and more circuses and of course there is no taxes coming in when the citizens become lazy and don’t work. Finally there was no money to pay their armies. The barbarians forged in, and the glory of Rome was no more.

    • Lynn says:

      Oh and Paul Ryan should not be blamed at all, he was trying to offer solutions in both the budget and the disastrous Obamacare.

    • Dimsdale says:

      You certainly can’t blame someone like Ryan that offered commonsense solutions that were totally ignored, to our peril, just the way that Reid refuses to bring any of the (what is it now, eight?) appropriation bills proposed by the House. The liberal orthodoxy cannot allow any non liberal solution to the problems they created.

© 2008-2014 Radio Vice Online Inc. All rights reserved | FAQ | Terms of Use | Advertise
Implemented and managed by Spider Creations LLC.