Graphs for you to ignore

Discussion in 'Politics' started by domonkoz, Sep 17, 2011.

  1. domonkoz
    Offline

    domonkoz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    55
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +5
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Before people question the validity of these, note that this statistic came from Forbes--the worst of all the bootlicking defenders of the rich.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Trickle down economics is the biggest trick on the American people ever. And you boneheads out there still believe it works. There is no excuse for that level of ignorance.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    some like the taste of boots
     
  3. OODA_Loop
    Offline

    OODA_Loop Account Terminated

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +523
    Boot licking buys SEC football season tickets.
     
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    see some find boots tastey
     
  5. OODA_Loop
    Offline

    OODA_Loop Account Terminated

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +523
    It gets really tasty when the rich seek you out to lick thier boots.
     
  6. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,298
    Big money manages the world today. We are witnessing another transformation that removes democracy and replaces it with a plutocracy while we sleep and work, and oddly we support this plutocracy through our inaction and voting special interests. Which side of the ideology spectrum are you on, does it matter?

    "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey [see Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World ]

    [​IMG]

    "Some commentators at the time, who were not in a position of responsibility and hence could not influence the decision making, had a different take on the financial mayhem. In the U.S., the free-market purists -- the "Atlas Shruggians," if you will -- vociferated that the failed banks ought to be let go into bankruptcy, ignoring the fact that these megabanks "account for 85% of the assets of the world's top 1,000 banks ranked by Tier 1 capital" (cf., Andrew G. Haldane). To let them go into bankruptcy would certainly have wiped out the investors, but it also would have debilitated the depositors and led to a total collapse of the Main Street economy.

    However, there was another alternative -- neither let the banks fail nor make the investors whole, the latter having been the road taken (with few exceptions) -- that was advocated by other commentators, including this one, who were not in a position of responsibility either: the governmental seizure of these megabanks; that is the nationalization of these behemoths. Analysts and economists such as Paul Jorion and Frédéric Lordon in France (3) or Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Volcker, and Robert Kuttner in the U.S. come to mind. Sheila Bair, who headed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for five years until her retirement on July 8, 2011, was a strong proponent of that approach. Under her leadership, the FDIC successfully managed over 370 bank failures in the past three and one-half years -- the biggest one was Washington Mutual, which was the sixth-largest US banking institution with over $300 billion in assets when it collapsed in September 2008, and was seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision and put into receivership with the FDIC. Unfortunately, Mrs. Bair commanded little clout in the higher echelons of the Bush and Obama administrations." Swans Commentary: Clueless Or Malevolent "Leaders"? Part I - The Financial Crisis, by Gilles d'Aymery - ga295
     
  7. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    How anyone in this world can run arround crying crockadile tears for the wealthy like they are some battered minority is just beyond the pale.


    How can anyone be so foolish?
     
  8. OODA_Loop
    Offline

    OODA_Loop Account Terminated

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +523
    How anyone can think you owe more cause you have more is foolish.
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,920
    1. Welcome to the board. The greatest advantage of said immigration is the education you are about to absorb....or ignore.

    2. Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

    a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

    b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

    c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

    But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

    3. Similarly, changes in the bottom limit, or threshold, of any top income group appears to be rapidly increasing the top groups income…when in reality, it is the increase of the group below the top that has the benefit.

    a. Thus, as the incomes of those in the second 10% grows into the top 10%, we must now add incomes of those from the next group below. This makes the higher level appear to grow, while the lower group adds lower income earners in order to have the proper number to make 10% of the total. The effect is due to increase in incomes below the threshold!

    b. In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich

    c. Example? The top fifth of household incomes began at $68,352 in 1980 (in 2004 dollars). But by 2004, the incomes of so many in the second 20% had increased above the former $68,352 threshold that the top 20% of earners now started at $88,029 in 2004! Therefore, if one calculates the mean average of all the incomes above $88,029 in 2004 it will be considerably higher than if you averaged all the incomes above the $68,352 as we did in 1980.


    The essential point is that this statistical effect does not mean that the rich are getting richer…it means more people are getting rich, and reflects the rising general prosperity!

    4. If you don’t see it, is it still there?? The stock market boom of the ‘90’s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple: http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z...a1995-2004.pdf

    Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data.

    But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution. Remember, before the changes in the tax code, late ‘80’s, investment income of our middle-income earners was all counted on tax returns. Thus, once it was no longer counted, it appeared that the income of the middle was sharply decreased, while that of the rich appeared to receive the major portion of said distributution!

    a. Capital gains tax rate cuts in ’97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.

    There, now...see how covetous dolts like yourself have been mislead?? Far better explanaton can be found in Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter nine.

    The bright side?

    Without the uneducated, such as yourself, where would the Left be...
    .....unemployed.
    __________________
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    oh listen to her spit on what she sees as the unwashed masses.


    Get this through your little pea brain.

    The founders set up a democracy because of the excesses of the wealthy and powerful.
     

Share This Page