Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Insane shitheads will never learn....they will come here every day repeating the same bullshit until they die.
Yeah....
So why do you do that, anyway?
Example 1 of an insane shithead shows up like clockwork.
Tell us asswipe, how raising taxes on rich people will grow the economy....
Insane shitheads will never learn....they will come here every day repeating the same bullshit until they die.
Yeah....
So why do you do that, anyway?
Example 1 of an insane shithead shows up like clockwork.
Tell us asswipe, how raising taxes on rich people will grow the economy....
Yeah....
So why do you do that, anyway?
Did I ever say it would?
You're a piece of shit liberal.....that is what you support as a liberal. Democraps just pushed for more taxes on "rich people" with the hidden secret that middle class taxes went up too with a few other taxes like obamacare.
Maybe you are a bi-polar liberal and change your views minute by minute?
Example 1 of an insane shithead shows up like clockwork.
Tell us asswipe, how raising taxes on rich people will grow the economy....
Did I ever say it would?
It shows the world's financiers that intelligence is back in US gov't and helps with the debt, shows that the greedy idiot Pubs are OUT along with pandering to the idiot rich- that the nonrich and DEMAND will be on the way back, ditz.
Now to get the Pubs in congress to stop holding the country hostage for politics, and get them the hell out of the way of the recovery, the only thing that will solve the deficit.
It shows the world's financiers that intelligence is back in US gov't and helps with the debt, shows that the greedy idiot Pubs are OUT along with pandering to the idiot rich- that the nonrich and DEMAND will be on the way back, ditz.
Now to get the Pubs in congress to stop holding the country hostage for politics, and get them the hell out of the way of the recovery, the only thing that will solve the deficit.
It shows the world's financiers that intelligence is back in US gov't and helps with the debt, shows that the greedy idiot Pubs are OUT along with pandering to the idiot rich- that the nonrich and DEMAND will be on the way back, ditz.
Now to get the Pubs in congress to stop holding the country hostage for politics, and get them the hell out of the way of the recovery, the only thing that will solve the deficit.
The Pubs are cornered animals right now, which makes them dangerous. They're not gonna "stop holding the country hostage for politics" because hostage-taking is all they have.
It shows the world's financiers that intelligence is back in US gov't and helps with the debt, shows that the greedy idiot Pubs are OUT along with pandering to the idiot rich- that the nonrich and DEMAND will be on the way back, ditz.
Now to get the Pubs in congress to stop holding the country hostage for politics, and get them the hell out of the way of the recovery, the only thing that will solve the deficit.
The Pubs are cornered animals right now, which makes them dangerous. They're not gonna "stop holding the country hostage for politics" because hostage-taking is all they have.
Ok shithead....do you want to play????
Come on tell us how raising taxes helps the economy.
Tell us how welfare stimulates the economy....better than taxpayers spending their own money.
Yourt silence will prove you are full of shit. You see, I don't have a MD so I don't go argue with doctors on medical procedures, so you being a loser with no college degrees shouldn't argue with me on business and economics, or really anything in general.
Basically..you have no idea what you are talking about.
You can't last in a thread without personally insulting people when your opinion gets challenged.
Not many of your ilk can.
The OP starts with an insult.
He insults and states something. If he's told he's wrong, instead of challenging the contention, he mentally masturbates with his degrees apparently thinking that makes everything he said correct.
I called out this fallacious reasoning in another thread and his response was to go back in my post history to find some way to personally attack me rather than challenge what I said.
Personally, I'm starting to think he's a troll. He rarely posts much of anything except insults and diverts the topic whenever he can.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 60 years (Actually, the last 30 years, as you can see) the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didnt notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% Reagan
1982 = 11.2% Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
Overview = Reagan Revolution Home To Roost In Charts - Dave Johnson
For example...Screwing over the nonrich and the country for the sake of the top 1% has been the recurring Pub catastrophe...See the "Gilded Age" and the 20's.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 60 years (Actually, the last 30 years, as you can see) the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didnt notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% Reagan
1982 = 11.2% Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
Overview = Reagan Revolution Home To Roost In Charts - Dave Johnson
For example...Screwing over the nonrich and the country for the sake of the top 1% has been the recurring Pub catastrophe...See the "Gilded Age" and the 20's.
you do realize that all that data concludes that the American worker was best off in the fifties when tax rates were at their highest?
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 60 years (Actually, the last 30 years, as you can see) the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didnt notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% Reagan
1982 = 11.2% Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
Overview = Reagan Revolution Home To Roost In Charts - Dave Johnson
For example...Screwing over the nonrich and the country for the sake of the top 1% has been the recurring Pub catastrophe...See the "Gilded Age" and the 20's.
you do realize that all that data concludes that the American worker was best off in the fifties when tax rates were at their highest?
Ok shithead....do you want to play????
Come on tell us how raising taxes helps the economy.
Tell us how welfare stimulates the economy....better than taxpayers spending their own money.
Yourt silence will prove you are full of shit. You see, I don't have a MD so I don't go argue with doctors on medical procedures, so you being a loser with no college degrees shouldn't argue with me on business and economics, or really anything in general.
He insults and states something. If he's told he's wrong, instead of challenging the contention, he mentally masturbates with his degrees apparently thinking that makes everything he said correct.
I called out this fallacious reasoning in another thread and his response was to go back in my post history to find some way to personally attack me rather than challenge what I said.
Personally, I'm starting to think he's a troll. He rarely posts much of anything except insults and diverts the topic whenever he can.
I'll play
1. I don't think you're full of shit about your degrees because you won't post them, I think you're full of shit about your degrees because of your illiteracy.
2. Nancy Pelosi is a wrinkled bag of shit, but you are entirely misrepresenting what she said and trying to make it sound worse than what it was because OBVIOUSLY if you give a guy $200 who had NO money before that then that is going to stimulate SOMEONE'S economy, or more likely plural someones.
3. Your premise that increasing revenue rates wouldn't have any effect on the economy is as stupid as the one of those who don't say shit about lowering expenses.
See, I'm just a peckerwood who works on cars for a living,but when I do my monthly paperwork I have to look at both income AND expenses when determining how MY economy is doing. You're just the opposite side of the stupid coin who says "no need to lower expenses"
Oh, PS I do have a college degree since you seem to think that makes ones OPINION more valuable than anothers, I personally don't believe that; but I doubt you've ever darkened a college classroom in your life.
Insane shitheads will never learn....they will come here every day repeating the same bullshit until they die.
However, when tax rates are higher, there is less employment, and more folks drawing entitlements.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 60 years (Actually, the last 30 years, as you can see) the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didnt notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% Reagan
1982 = 11.2% Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
Overview = Reagan Revolution Home To Roost In Charts - Dave Johnson
For example...Screwing over the nonrich and the country for the sake of the top 1% has been the recurring Pub catastrophe...See the "Gilded Age" and the 20's.
