Charts from the senate income inequity hearing

[Big Fitz]

scary facts the right will pretend mean nothing.

Its why they are headed for the trash heap of history

Scary facts?

Yeah, sort of like "SHOCKING DECLINE OF SUNSHINE AT NIGHT!!!"

Income equality is a NON-ISSUE.

Oh and Mother Jones is not a news source, it's a radical advocacy magazine that is 30 years past it's relevance.

 

[Truthmatters]

Then tell us a time in hsitory when income inequality was uninvolved with a revolution of the people.


You will NOT find one

 

[Truthmatters]

This is what the right does.

They pretend history doesnt exsist or try to rewrite it.

Its why they have fought to get money for schools cut for decades.

 

[Big Fitz]

This is what the right does.

They pretend history doesnt exsist or try to rewrite it.

Its why they have fought to get money for schools cut for decades.

No, we ignore things that are NOT problems. Since economics is not a zero-sum game, income inequality is NOT an issue. If someone makes more than you, does not mean he stole from you, no matter how much he makes.

 

[Truthmatters]

Did you go get your proof from history yet?

Gee I wonder why?

 

[The T]

This is what the right does.

They pretend history doesnt exsist or try to rewrite it.

Its why they have fought to get money for schools cut for decades.

No, we ignore things that are NOT problems. Since economics is not a zero-sum game, income inequality is NOT an issue. If someone makes more than you, does not mean he stole from you, no matter how much he makes.

Indeed. it just means that you will have to work harder on your own rather than demanding Gubmint skew things so the whiners will just shut up and Gubmint takes liberty away from even the whiners.

 

[Truthmatters]

Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto (Italian pronunciation: [vilˈfreːdo paˈreːto]; 15 July 1848 – 19 August 1923), born Wilfried Fritz Pareto, was an Italian engineer, sociologist, economist, political scientist and philosopher. He made several important contributions to economics, particularly in the study of income distribution and in the analysis of individuals' choices.

He introduced the concept of Pareto efficiency and helped develop the field of microeconomics. He also was the first to discover that income follows a Pareto distribution, which is a power law probability distribution. The Pareto principle was named after him and built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. He also contributed to the fields of sociology and mathematics.


"His legacy as an economist was profound. Partly because of him, the field evolved from a branch of moral philosophy as practiced by Adam Smith into a data intensive field of scientific research and mathematical equations. His books look more like modern economics than most other texts of that day: tables of statistics from across the world and ages, rows of integral signs and equations, intricate charts and graphs."[

 

[Liability]

The pattern seen in these charts is unsustainable for any society based on Democracy

Do you really think that having the government take money away from those who make more than you will increase your income?

I suspect that no matter how often you ask that question ( a damn fine one), you will never get a coherent, honest answer -- even if one of the lib drones tries to answer at all.

 

[Big Fitz]

Then tell us a time in hsitory when income inequality was uninvolved with a revolution of the people.


You will NOT find one

I'm quite certain in those cases from Tsar Nicholas being overthrown to the French American Revolution, you will find it corruption and oppression which are far greater driving forces than the fact that someone has more than them.

Let's look briefly at it.

The French Revolution. yes the nobility were obscenely rich. But how did they 'earn'? Taxation. It was oppressively high. Starvation was becoming rampant, and the inconsistent and weak leadership by King Louis XVI with his tin ear for people's concerns and making the lives better for his subjects earned him a trip to the guillotine.

The American Revolution. If you want to be picky, it was started by rich dudes against a king who was taxing them unfairly and ignoring their concerns. They were being affected by the policies of English Mercantilism that forced them out of lucrative trading partners in the rest of the world. This created a hardship and violation, in their minds of what it was to be a British citizen in a colony. So, income disparity? Not an issue. They were rich and inspired with the new theories of government being subject to the governed.

The Russian Revolution. Crippling poverty was the fuel for communists to come in and preach envy against a ruler who had a tin ear for their suffering, AND taxed them heavily. Then to top it off, started sending young men to die on the eastern front in WW1.

You are only looking at the fact that they IS income disparity and ignoring the reasons WHY they are poor and rich. Like an illness, a fever could be caused by many things, but if you don't understand the root cause of it, you can still die from it if left untreated with the proper medication.

I know this is above your paygrade Truthiepoo, but I don't post seriously to you for your benefit.

 

[Liability]

The right wing lies will not win the day

The left wing lies will?

Sorry. But with you as the spokeperson for the mindlessness of the left wing, your lies have no chance, you lying maggot.

What confuses you, you drooling simpleton, is that for the most part, what YOU call a right wing "lie" isn't a lie at all.

 

[Meister]

I love the USMB Right Wingnut Brigade's butthurt reaction when their bullshit gets a light shined on it.

Oh brother

 

[Liability]

This is what the right does.

They pretend history doesnt exsist or try to rewrite it.

Its why they have fought to get money for schools cut for decades.

Rejecting YOUR assertions is not the same as denying reality.

The idiocy YOU spew and "reality" are not even on the same planet.

 

[initforme]

New workers entering the workforce need to

1) quit thinking they are going to get ahead. Facts are only a very very very small percentage is going to really make it. The rest will barely get by. Thats reality. The american dream some jerks speak of is being status quo and all these drummed up success stories are a bunch of garbage. Facts are you are faced with struggling to get by but then thats kinda what life is supposed to be about anyway.
2) constantly be looking for a different higher paying job. Loyaltly in the workforce is something business owners dont look at anymore. A good worker should drop a job at the drop of a pin. You owe your employer nothing when a better job comes around. No notice. Goodbye.
3) dont plan on SS or medicare or affordable health care. It wont be there. Dont get sick.

Nice future they have.

 

[Truthmatters]

WHERE is your example in history of a revolution by the people that DOES NOT include an income inequality??????


You cant find one huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Your right wing lies are falling ass appart.


Its killing the republican party

 

[Trajan]

what a load of malarkey....


Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.
Bottom 99 percent Top 1 percent
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%

 

[Liability]

Mind-Blowing Charts From the Senate's Income Inequality Hearing | Mother Jones

Oh nozies. If the "charts" are valid ( a big "if" in its own right), then that means that the rich have done well.

Oh nozies.

Is that any way to run a war of divide and conquer?

How DARE "those" rich people do anything to get even richer!?

It's not fair because --

well --

it just isn't.

That's why.

 

[editec]

No democracy survives this type of inequity sustained.


Do you want our democracy to live on?

I suspect, TM. that the sotto voce message some here are trying to tell is this: No, we don't fucking care. I got MINE.. get yours, Jack

What I suspect you are being outraged by is the fact that many people (maybe most) truly don't care about society as a whole.​

My point here is that you cannot win an intellectual debate with people who don't have the same AGENDA as you have.

In fact, you cannot even have an honest discussion with people who agenda is as wildly different as yours is from theirs.

​

 

[Big Fitz]

WHERE is your example in history of a revolution by the people that DOES NOT include an income inequality??????


You cant find one huh?

Wow... totally missed the point.

You say income inequality is the issue. I remind you and illustrate it is not the issue, it is a symptom of the REAL issues: Tyranny, overtaxation, abuse of the governed...

THOSE are things sane people rebel against. The fact the government can come in and take them away to have them summarily executed. Or render them destitute and homeless.

They don't revolt over making a poor wage, or not getting free healthcare! That's lunacy! (wait, look who I'm talking to)

They revolt over ABUSES OF GOVERNMENT!

Income inequality exists everywhere in this world. It is an irrelevant observation and statistic. It's like being concerned the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen gas, though you probably didn't know that either.

So now, go and crow in triumph that I could not 'disprove' you, because I did not give you the fantasy you wanted entertained.

 

[Meister]

what a load of malarkey....


Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.
Bottom 99 percent Top 1 percent
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%

You mean that the variance of the two isn't that great over the years? Damn, listening to Art and Truth you would have thought there was a huge disparity between then and now.