The Limping Middle Class

[PoliticalChic]

I don't understand why anyone would continue to apologize for Bush's redistribution of wealth.

There can't be that many posters on this BB in the top 5% of wage earners.

Your non-response to post #10 is your most elequant post to date.

 

[Nic_Driver]

I don't understand why anyone would continue to apologize for Bush's redistribution of wealth.

There can't be that many posters on this BB in the top 5% of wage earners.

Your non-response to post #10 is your most elequant post to date.

Don't you have something else to do with you time given that you're in the top 5% of wage earners?

 

[Nic_Driver]

THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.

When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?

The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html

Well written, you can tell by the neo-con responses; attacking the author and attacking the messenger with nothing about the subject which is spot-on.

I'd be pleased if you would entertain the following question:

How does it harm you if your neighbor earns ten times what you earn?

Just another neo-conism, change the subject.

Who said anything about harm and who cares if you're pleased?

 

[martybegan]

Well written, you can tell by the neo-con responses; attacking the author and attacking the messenger with nothing about the subject which is spot-on.

I'd be pleased if you would entertain the following question:

How does it harm you if your neighbor earns ten times what you earn?

Just another neo-conism, change the subject.

Who said anything about harm and who cares if you're pleased?

Nice dodge. Lets rephrase. how does raising taxes on someone better off than you, while not lowering your taxes benefit you, as a middle class person, directly?

 

[Chris]

I'd be pleased if you would entertain the following question:

How does it harm you if your neighbor earns ten times what you earn?

Just another neo-conism, change the subject.

Who said anything about harm and who cares if you're pleased?

Nice dodge. Lets rephrase. how does raising taxes on someone better off than you, while not lowering your taxes benefit you, as a middle class person, directly?

It reduces the deficit.

 

[Chris]

 

[martybegan]

Just another neo-conism, change the subject.

Who said anything about harm and who cares if you're pleased?

Nice dodge. Lets rephrase. how does raising taxes on someone better off than you, while not lowering your taxes benefit you, as a middle class person, directly?

It reduces the deficit.

How does reducing the deficit, without lowering my taxes help me, and how does it address then inequality stated in the original post?

Also, the increased revenue NEVER goes to reducing the deficit, someone just comes up with another program that gets funded, and the debt keeps rolling.

 

[Chris]

 

[Chris]

Nice dodge. Lets rephrase. how does raising taxes on someone better off than you, while not lowering your taxes benefit you, as a middle class person, directly?

It reduces the deficit.

How does reducing the deficit, without lowering my taxes help me, and how does it address then inequality stated in the original post?

Also, the increased revenue NEVER goes to reducing the deficit, someone just comes up with another program that gets funded, and the debt keeps rolling.

That is total bullshit.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and balanced the budget.

 

[martybegan]

It reduces the deficit.

How does reducing the deficit, without lowering my taxes help me, and how does it address then inequality stated in the original post?

Also, the increased revenue NEVER goes to reducing the deficit, someone just comes up with another program that gets funded, and the debt keeps rolling.

That is total bullshit.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and balanced the budget.

Again you dodge the question. How does just raising taxes on the wealthy help me if my taxes do not go down? All this talk about redistributing wealth leaves out the part where people in the lower strata get thier taxes lowered, or get handouts of the money taken from the more wealthy.

Again, how does raising taxes on the rich help me personally?

No one seems able to answer the question. All chris does is go to his huffpo source and spout charts that are meaningless.

 

[Chris]

How does reducing the deficit, without lowering my taxes help me, and how does it address then inequality stated in the original post?

Also, the increased revenue NEVER goes to reducing the deficit, someone just comes up with another program that gets funded, and the debt keeps rolling.

That is total bullshit.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and balanced the budget.

Again you dodge the question. How does just raising taxes on the wealthy help me if my taxes do not go down? All this talk about redistributing wealth leaves out the part where people in the lower strata get thier taxes lowered, or get handouts of the money taken from the more wealthy.

Again, how does raising taxes on the rich help me personally?

No one seems able to answer the question. All chris does is go to his huffpo source and spout charts that are meaningless.

By reducing the deficit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.

When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?

The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html

Fuck you and your quest for equality.

The only thing you fucking Progressives want to insure is that everyone is equally miserable, like North Korea at night.

Once again, go fuck yourself. Nov 2012 can't come soon enough.

We tried it your way and the facts are in: Socialism sucks Alaskan Moose cock

 

[Chris]

THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.

When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?

The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html

Fuck you and your quest for equality.

The only thing you fucking Progressives want to insure is that everyone is equally miserable, like North Korea at night.

Once again, go fuck yourself. Nov 2012 can't come soon enough.

We tried it your way and the facts are in: Socialism sucks Alaskan Moose cock

Raising taxes on the rich is not socialism.

And fuck you too, Frank. You are as dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[Chris]

Why isn't the economy rebounding and producing lots of good jobs? The answer has two parts: plutocracy and austerity. Plutocracy forces the money and power to the top, and that power forces austerity measures on us to remove even more money and power from the rest.

Plutocracy: Fundamental changes brought in by the Reagan Revolution have come home to roost, shifting almost all of our economy's income growth to a few at the top, while pitting working people around the world against each other. The forced decline of labor unions has left people on their own against giant corporations.

Austerity: The second part of the crappy-jobs, slow-growth equation is austerity. Tax cuts for the wealthy have resulted in huge budget deficits, defunding government's power to protect regular people. The plutocracy uses these deficits as an excuse to force budget cuts, "spending down" our infrastructure by deferring maintenance and modernization, cutting back on education, cutting back on basic scientific research and cutting back in many other areas thereby reducing our economic competitiveness. But they're doing fine today, so they don't care about how this hurts the rest of us tomorrow.

 

[kiwiman127]

The OP is correct, I don't see anyone refuting the facts.
This trend will continue. Look, we have wages about where they were in constant 1982 Real Dollars and it's been an over 30 year trend. And at the same time, Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages. Now, the trend includes not only holding wages but also making great profits while minimizing their workforce. But they are hiring overseas where labor is cheaper.
Why would this tend not continue? What will happen to the Middle Class?

 

[martybegan]

That is total bullshit.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and balanced the budget.

Again you dodge the question. How does just raising taxes on the wealthy help me if my taxes do not go down? All this talk about redistributing wealth leaves out the part where people in the lower strata get thier taxes lowered, or get handouts of the money taken from the more wealthy.

Again, how does raising taxes on the rich help me personally?

No one seems able to answer the question. All chris does is go to his huffpo source and spout charts that are meaningless.

By reducing the deficit.

How does reducing the deficit help me personally?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.

When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?

The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html

Fuck you and your quest for equality.

The only thing you fucking Progressives want to insure is that everyone is equally miserable, like North Korea at night.

Once again, go fuck yourself. Nov 2012 can't come soon enough.

We tried it your way and the facts are in: Socialism sucks Alaskan Moose cock

Raising taxes on the rich is not socialism.

And fuck you too, Frank. You are as dumb as a box of rocks.

If you taxed the dreaded rich at 100% you'd net about $980,000,000,000... one time 'cause they'd then stop producing.

Who's dumb as a box of rocks?

 

[Zagg]

The OP is correct, I don't see anyone refuting the facts.
This trend will continue. Look, we have wages about where they were in constant 1982 Real Dollars and it's been an over 30 year trend. And at the same time, Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages. Now, the trend includes not only holding wages but also making great profits while minimizing their workforce. But they are hiring overseas where labor is cheaper.
Why would this tend not continue? What will happen to the Middle Class?

This trend will continue unless there's some extraordinary external intervention. With American and European workers competing with Chinese and Indian workers, their wages will ultimately converge.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why isn't the economy rebounding and producing lots of good jobs? The answer has two parts: plutocracy and austerity. Plutocracy forces the money and power to the top, and that power forces austerity measures on us to remove even more money and power from the rest.

Plutocracy: Fundamental changes brought in by the Reagan Revolution have come home to roost, shifting almost all of our economy's income growth to a few at the top, while pitting working people around the world against each other. The forced decline of labor unions has left people on their own against giant corporations.

Austerity: The second part of the crappy-jobs, slow-growth equation is austerity. Tax cuts for the wealthy have resulted in huge budget deficits, defunding government's power to protect regular people. The plutocracy uses these deficits as an excuse to force budget cuts, "spending down" our infrastructure by deferring maintenance and modernization, cutting back on education, cutting back on basic scientific research and cutting back in many other areas thereby reducing our economic competitiveness. But they're doing fine today, so they don't care about how this hurts the rest of us tomorrow.

Oh fucking brother...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Again you dodge the question. How does just raising taxes on the wealthy help me if my taxes do not go down? All this talk about redistributing wealth leaves out the part where people in the lower strata get thier taxes lowered, or get handouts of the money taken from the more wealthy.

Again, how does raising taxes on the rich help me personally?

No one seems able to answer the question. All chris does is go to his huffpo source and spout charts that are meaningless.

By reducing the deficit.

How does reducing the deficit help me personally?

You're currently on the hook for about $45,000. You figure it out.