Graphs for you to ignore

[domonkoz]

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

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

some like the taste of boots

 

[OODA_Loop]

Boot licking buys SEC football season tickets.

 

[Truthmatters]

see some find boots tastey

 

[OODA_Loop]

It gets really tasty when the rich seek you out to lick thier boots.

 

[midcan5]

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 ]

"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

 

[Truthmatters]

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?

 

[OODA_Loop]

How anyone can think you owe more cause you have more is foolish.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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


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.

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.
__________________

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

"We hold theses truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal....."

Anything else is a violation, even when it comes to take home pay...

George Kaiser being first in line to collect his after the Solyndra collapse, just because he contributed to the Thug From Chicago's presidential campaign, is a violation too. But Marxists have traditionally not let little things like that bother them. It certainly wasn't first on their minds when they were throwing Czar Nicholas, the Czarina, and all their little kiddies down that old, musty, abandoned Siberian well, so long ago.

 

[Truthmatters]

man are you going to be disappointed that you cant pulll a whitewater on Obama huh?

There is not going to be any there there buddy.

They handed over all the Emails right after they were asked for them.

If they had somehting to hide they would have pulled a Bush and refused to hand over the emails withoiut a protracted court fight.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

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?

All the poor bastards who actually think they're rich.

I've concluded that Conservative America, if given a choice, will opt for the one which squanders millions of taxpayer dollars, which they then turn into a battle royal over who is going to pay.

They're really fools when they act like they don't know who always pays the debts incurred by the fiscally irresponsible morons (Republican and Democrat) running this country.

And I was beginning to think they had the inside track and that Jesus was on his way bringing with him lots and lots of cash.

Such foolishness is just another form of the Republican denial about the part they played in creating this mess.

 

[Seawytch]

How anyone can think you owe more cause you have more is foolish.

Certainly not Rick Perry...he thinks the poor should pay the most...

 

[Truthmatters]

Part they played?


They orchastrated it for poltical gain.

It was just like Boehner said about his own fellow Rs in congress, they wanted chaos so they could get the policy that they wanted.

This whole mess is part of the Rove permenant majority.


Bankrupt the country so they can tell people the country has to cut all government to shreds and then the peoples power is greatly reduced so it can be overwhelmed by the moneied insterests.

it was their plan

 

[code1211]

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

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.

In the top graph, the rich get richer and the poor get richer at a slower pace.

Was there any dramatic change in the governance of the country that occurred in 2007?

Hint: Harry and Nancy.

 

[editec]

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell​

If you're in the top 20%, it makes sense (assuming one doesn't give a damn about the wellfare of the nation) to lick boot.​

Bootlickers fully understand who signs their paychecks. They are acting rationally when they defend the status quo.​

And what IS the status quo?​

Insider industries that dominate national and State political machines.​

You either on the corporate jet​

or you're not​

​

 

[Truthmatters]

dude your team fucked it all up before nancy and harry got there.

What fool would wage two wars and not riase taxes?

One who wanted the country DEEP in debt for poltical reasons

 

[Seawytch]

In the top graph, the rich get richer and the poor get richer at a slower pace.

Was there any dramatic change in the governance of the country that occurred in 2007?

Hint: Harry and Nancy.

So tell us...what financial policy did "Harry and Nancy" put in place in 2007?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Now, what is one to take away from you post?

1. You didn't read it?

2. Your limitations prevented you from understanding it?

Clearly you have no rebuttal.

Carry on.