Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[francoHFW]

All those regular folks giving five grand to big money propagandists/dirty tricksters....RW idiocy.

I though Avast had cleaned up the Franco Hater Dupe Bot Virus that was infecting the board?

Total dupe of the big money, greedy idiot rich GOP^^ Pubtroll.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Only the GOP has a bs propaganda machine, dopey. The more you listen, the less you know. The world is aghast.

Did you notice that everything I posted is linked,sourced,and documented?

I point this out because, based on the insipid nature of your post, one can tell that there is very little that you do notice.

The Left has the money, controls the schools and the media, and the dissemination of information....

...that, and the fact that you are as dumb as asphalt, explains your posts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Total dupe of the big money, greedy idiot rich GOP^^ Pubtroll.

The AV does appear to have damaged the bullshit generation portion of the artificial stupidity routine you're based on...

The random words you post don't fit together, franco hater dupe bot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And nobody parrots the bs more than Trump.

Breaking: Reaganist tax rates and policy have been killing the nonrich and the country for 35 years now, defended to the death by the GOP, including Trump. DUH.

1. "And nobody parrots the bs more than Trump."
Post #638 casts the lie to your post.
No one lies more than Barack Hussein Obama (the most merciful)


2. "Reaganist tax rates and policy have been killing the nonrich and the country for 35 years now,...."

And now for your education:

a.' In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html

b. The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
   http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


3."Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why Liberals Hate Free Speech"

This is as much an ignorant lie today was it was last October.

 

[hazlnut]

Liberals are the power in the political realm....and they illustrate what Lord Action meant about power absolutely corrupting those who control it.



1." ...do any of you actually remember a time when liberals truly supported and believed in freedom of speech.... genuine,bona fide agreement with the principle that liberty includes allowing those with whom you disagree to have access to the marketplace of ideas, and that this marketplace itself will decide which are the best ones. You know, Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," and all that?

I can't either. Probably nobody can who was not born during or before World War II,



2.... those on the Left do not believe in free speech. They simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express themselves.



3. [Thus the] editorial in Harvard's student newspaper The Crimson, in which Sandra Korn, a student columnist and "women's studies" major (who didn't see that one coming?) obligingly calls for academic totalitarianism,

"Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. .... No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?



"Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.



"The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...


There, in a nutshell, is the modern liberal attitude toward freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought. If research doesn't substantiate the cultural goals and priorities of today's Neo-Fascists, then we must ensure that it "does not continue." Why liberals hate freedom of speech



If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced. "Academic justice" means suppression of all those naughty things that people might say that contradict us.


As far as speech is concerned, the Left definitely prefers a command economy over the free market.

Name one liberal agent of Government who has stopped you from speaking anywhere or posting your vomit here.

Me telling you to STFU… IS free speech. I support your right to vomit vile stupid thread here, just be aware free speech protections do not cover you from the reaction of others. Only Government.

You fail miserably again.

 

[MaryL]

I used to be a liberal. I gave that up when I realized what liberalism has become. The last bastion of the scoundrel, conformist groupthink. And they hide all this under a guise of moral absolutism and promote it like soviet era propaganda commissars as if their ideals were the be all end all. That isn't what liberalism is about, it's a total contradiction.

 

[francoHFW]

I used to be a liberal. I gave that up when I realized what liberalism has become. The last bastion of the scoundrel, conformist groupthink. And they hide all this under a guise of moral absolutism and promote it like soviet era propaganda commissars as if their ideals were the be all end all. That isn't what liberalism is about, it's a total contradiction.

And mainly before you were brainwashed by Rush and Fox, or whatever outpost of RW bs.

 

[francoHFW]

And nobody parrots the bs more than Trump.

Breaking: Reaganist tax rates and policy have been killing the nonrich and the country for 35 years now, defended to the death by the GOP, including Trump. DUH.

1. "And nobody parrots the bs more than Trump."
Post #638 casts the lie to your post.
No one lies more than Barack Hussein Obama (the most merciful)


2. "Reaganist tax rates and policy have been killing the nonrich and the country for 35 years now,...."

And now for your education:

a.' In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html

b. The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
   http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


3."Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Then we had the S+L Bust of 1989, or the 2nd Great Pub World Depression of 2008 DUHHHHH. Raygun tripled the debt, W doubled. Great job, twits. And the middle class feqed all over.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Why Liberals Hate Free Speech"

This is as much an ignorant lie today was it was last October.

Then why are there "free speech zones" on the grounds of the nation's universities?

 

[Moonglow]

Money=free speech....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I used to be a liberal. I gave that up when I realized what liberalism has become. The last bastion of the scoundrel, conformist groupthink. And they hide all this under a guise of moral absolutism and promote it like soviet era propaganda commissars as if their ideals were the be all end all. That isn't what liberalism is about, it's a total contradiction.

And mainly before you were brainwashed by Rush and Fox, or whatever outpost of RW bs.

Yet....you are never able to contradict the linked, documented, sourced facts........facts.....that I post.

Were you more intelligent, it would give you pause.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And nobody parrots the bs more than Trump.

Breaking: Reaganist tax rates and policy have been killing the nonrich and the country for 35 years now, defended to the death by the GOP, including Trump. DUH.

1. "And nobody parrots the bs more than Trump."
Post #638 casts the lie to your post.
No one lies more than Barack Hussein Obama (the most merciful)


2. "Reaganist tax rates and policy have been killing the nonrich and the country for 35 years now,...."

And now for your education:

a.' In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html

b. The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
   http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


3."Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Then we had the S+L Bust of 1989, or the 2nd Great Pub World Depression of 2008 DUHHHHH. Raygun tripled the debt, W doubled. Great job, twits. And the middle class feqed all over.

"Raygun tripled the debt..."

Now, watch carefully .....how I dispense with the fallacy......and you will have no valid response:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and ....
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Man is on this planet to fight evil.
Reagan did exactly that.

 

[Mac1958]

I used to be a liberal. I gave that up when I realized what liberalism has become. The last bastion of the scoundrel, conformist groupthink. And they hide all this under a guise of moral absolutism and promote it like soviet era propaganda commissars as if their ideals were the be all end all. That isn't what liberalism is about, it's a total contradiction.

I'd just point out that - just as what has happened on the other "side" - liberalism has split into multiple parts.

There are plenty of people who lean left and retain the qualities of the type of liberalism you remember, such as tolerance, an open mind, intellectual curiosity and a sincere love of their country and the free flow of ideas it offers.

But unfortunately, the louder (and therefore more influential) side is the Regressive Left, which is hateful, narcissistic, closed-minded, incurious and intolerant of any views that conflict with theirs. In other words, pretty much everything that more traditional liberals used to fight against.

These people are a distortion, a mutation, not traditional liberals.
.

 

[francoHFW]

So what started wrecking the non-rich and the country 30 years ago? At least megarich a-holes are doing well...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t 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. Labor’s 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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what started wrecking the non-rich and the country 30 years ago? At least megarich a-holes are doing well...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t 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. Labor’s 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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Bravo!!!

This is the best job I have ever ........ever!!!!......seen you do!

While rife with errors......it still shows an attempt at research heretofore unknown in your posts!!!

Congrats!


Now...let's get down to business.....

1. "The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers."
If this is actually the case...chalk it up to Barack Obama:

a. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession."
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


b. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

"The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

"....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/09/investing/hedge-fund-billionaire-defends-obama-chanos/


More wrecking ball destruction of your post......coming right up!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what started wrecking the non-rich and the country 30 years ago? At least megarich a-holes are doing well...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t 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. Labor’s 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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

2. 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. Labor’s 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



False.

1. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

2. The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Update:
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.



Get that????

The Reagan Boom!!!!!



Keep looking for the Obama Boom.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what started wrecking the non-rich and the country 30 years ago? At least megarich a-holes are doing well...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t 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. Labor’s 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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

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.


The glaring error, of course, is that there is no perennial "Top 10%" in America.

1. As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.

In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.



2. "The Rich"....No such class exists in an ongoing basis...merely as a snapshot in time.

"More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell."
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - Investors.com

3. When all sources of income are included -- wages, salaries, realized capital gains, dividends, business income and government benefits -- and taxes paid are deducted, households in the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005. (See chart nearby; the data is from the Congressional Budget Office's "Comprehensive Household Income.") This fact alone refutes the notion that the poor are getting poorer. They are not.
The data also show downward mobility among the highest income earners. The top 1% in 1996 saw an average decline in their real, after-tax incomes by 52% in the next 10 years.
America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...536934297.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

As revealed in this thread, it is the Left's policies that impede financial movement....upward movement.

From the NYTimes, about Barack Obama....
"But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html


".....“the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.”

It is taxation, and the commensurate over regulation that prevent more from becoming wealthy....

....after all, what one owns isn't federally taxed.....
...it is what one earns!!!!




What could one do with funds that are not stolen by taxation, and frivolous spending???


"THE “MAGIC” OF COMPOUND INTEREST: HOW $400 TODAY CAN BE $1200 IN THE NEAR FUTURE"
The "Magic" of Compound Interest - How To Grow Wealth

"Compound interest occurs when the interest that accrues to an amount of money in turn accrues interest itself. It's the deceivingly simple force that causes wealth to rapidly snowball. This is why it's the concept that is at the core of all finance."
Every 25-Year-Old In America Should See This Chart



But the average American can't avail himself of investing and compound interest unless we get the Liberals' hands out of our pockets!!!


And that's what the great Ronald Reagan did for the country.

 

[francoHFW]

Breaking: To protect the bloated megarich and giant corps that don't pay their fair share, the GOP has ruined our infrastructure, wrecked the non-rich and the country, refused any investment in training for millions of good jobs going begging or to China and Germany etc, and obstructed EVERY solution that were typical in the past, including the one thing Obama was able to get passed- the GOP HEALTH PLAN they put up every time Dems tried something the last 50 years....

I've posted that link a million times. Everything I say is factual and been linked to before, but after 9 years of searching thru MANY pages of google RW bs for sources that are underfunded and tend to disappear, I'll just go with screaming at ignorant dupes TYVM. See sig First paragraph is from 2008 and only gotten worse thanks TOTALLY to GOP obstruction and continuation of THEIR policies, dupe..

GOP "booms" are always based on huge debt and corrupt bubbles, including Raygun's and W's DUHHHHH.