Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[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

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

The WSJ editorial page etc is now pure Murdoch bs...

 

[francoHFW]

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

Remember the last time you were correct in a post?
Me neither.


It's the Left with all the money for propaganda, not the Right.

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
   1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

1. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
   1. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions…The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

If you ever get around to actual research....try
“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin

Except those are "liberal" foundations and charities and conservative political cheats and liars DUH.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"...the bloated megarich and giant corps that don't pay their fair share,...."

The only thing that is bloated is the rhetoric of you communists searching for some imaginary bête noire.

The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

 

[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

The WSJ editorial page etc is now pure Murdoch bs...

The only possible response from one with no possible response.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Remember the last time you were correct in a post?
Me neither.


It's the Left with all the money for propaganda, not the Right.

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
   1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

1. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
   1. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions…The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

If you ever get around to actual research....try
“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin

Except those are "liberal" foundations and charities and conservative political cheats and liars DUH.

Your typical homage to George Soros?

Excellent.

 

[francoHFW]

Just the facts, brainwashed dingbat. Look ANY of it up ANYWHERE but your bought of bs propaganda machine.

If you include ALL taxes and fees, EVERYONE in the USA pays 20-30%. AND ALL THE NEW WEALTH GOES TO THE RICHEST. Snap the feq out of it. Ay caramba.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't imagine why any liberal would want to inhibit PoliticalChic's free speech rights,

given the inanity of her rants in the name of conservatism. That would be like not wanting Sarah Palin to be Trump's VP.

 

[eagle7_31]

I can't imagine why any liberal would want to inhibit PoliticalChic's free speech rights,

given the inanity of her rants in the name of conservatism. That would be like not wanting Sarah Palin to be Trump's VP.

maybe the Hidebeast will pick Ed Rendell.

 

[bripat9643]

It's the exact same principle. You're fine with discrimination....we get it.

So you think your family dinner is the same as operating a restaurant?

In ways. I can choose whom I allow to participate. I'm not a bit bashful about telling someone it's time they were elsewhere.

Ok, so you want an America where a restaurant can turn away Jews.

How will that make America better?

Yes, it will mean the government can't interfere with a private business. The less government we have, the better America is.

You and your 1% are wrong. Institutionally enforced anti-Semitism will not make America a better place.

Hmmm . . . . . . wrong, I'm not talking about "enforcing" anything. I'm talking about allowing people to make their own choices and decisions. That's called "freedom."

 

[bripat9643]

It's the exact same principle. You're fine with discrimination....we get it.

So you think your family dinner is the same as operating a restaurant?

In ways. I can choose whom I allow to participate. I'm not a bit bashful about telling someone it's time they were elsewhere.

Ok, so you want an America where a restaurant can turn away Jews.

How will that make America better?

Yes, it will mean the government can't interfere with a private business. The less government we have, the better America is.

Governments spoil people, people begin to expect pure food and drugs as one of their rights, and even expect reasonably safe working conditions. Ah for the old days when a company could grind up an occasional rat in its hamburger, and no one cared.

Government has had absolutely no effect on Food and Drug safety or worker safety. It has, however driven up the price of drugs to astronomic levels. And it has also allowed tens of thousands of people to die by failing to approve life saving drugs in a timely fashion.

 

[francoHFW]

Lack of regulation thanks to GOP and Big Pharma lobbyists mean we pay multiple time for drugs compared to EVERYONE else in the world. Booosh put in no negotiating drug prices for Medicare. Brilliant.

 

[francoHFW]

The dupes don't know who's for big money, lobbyists, and campaign finance bs. Idiocy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you think your family dinner is the same as operating a restaurant?

In ways. I can choose whom I allow to participate. I'm not a bit bashful about telling someone it's time they were elsewhere.

Ok, so you want an America where a restaurant can turn away Jews.

How will that make America better?

Yes, it will mean the government can't interfere with a private business. The less government we have, the better America is.

You and your 1% are wrong. Institutionally enforced anti-Semitism will not make America a better place.

Hmmm . . . . . . wrong, I'm not talking about "enforcing" anything. I'm talking about allowing people to make their own choices and decisions. That's called "freedom."

When the government protects your right to discriminate, that is institutional enforcement of discrimination.

and no, you are not allowing people to make their own choices. You are preventing a Jew from choosing to eat at the same restaurant you eat at.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government has had absolutely no effect on Food and Drug safety or worker safety.

When you read a statement like that, you know you're in conversation with a retard.

 

[bripat9643]

In ways. I can choose whom I allow to participate. I'm not a bit bashful about telling someone it's time they were elsewhere.

Ok, so you want an America where a restaurant can turn away Jews.

How will that make America better?

Yes, it will mean the government can't interfere with a private business. The less government we have, the better America is.

You and your 1% are wrong. Institutionally enforced anti-Semitism will not make America a better place.

Hmmm . . . . . . wrong, I'm not talking about "enforcing" anything. I'm talking about allowing people to make their own choices and decisions. That's called "freedom."

When the government protects your right to discriminate, that is institutional enforcement of discrimination.

Nope. That's called freedom. Discrimination is part of freedom, jast as being a bigot is an aspect of freedom of speech. Having the government keep its nose out of voluntary human interactions is not enforcement of anything other than your right to do as you see fit with your property and your body.

and no, you are not allowing people to make their own choices. You are preventing a Jew from choosing to eat at the same restaurant you eat at.

You mean you have forced a restaurant owner to serve someone he doesn't want to serve. No one has a right to "choose" to be served by any business if the owner doesn't want to serve them.

 

[bripat9643]

Government has had absolutely no effect on Food and Drug safety or worker safety.

When you read a statement like that, you know you're in conversation with a retard.

Show us how OSHA improved the rate at which industrial accidents and illnesses declined:

 

[mikegriffith1]

When liberal figures are invited to speak at conservative colleges, you don't see students trying to get the speaker's invitation cancelled, and you don't see students trying to disrupt the speech when it occurs. But these things happen on liberal college campuses quite frequently.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment Stops Me
Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) said he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" during an interview Wednesday, noting he was prevented from doing that by the First Amendment.

Lieu got attention a day earlier when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, assailing conservative claims of the tech giant's bias against them by reading positive and negative stories about Republican Reps. Steve Scalise (La.) and Steve King (Iowa), the latter of whom has repeatedly courted controversy with racially charged remarks."
Lieu: 'I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech' but First Amendment Stops Me

 

[Moonglow]

When liberal figures are invited to speak at conservative colleges, you don't see students trying to get the speaker's invitation cancelled, and you don't see students trying to disrupt the speech when it occurs. But these things happen on liberal college campuses quite frequently.

Where are these so-called conservative colleges?

 

[Moonglow]

"Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment Stops Me
Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) said he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" during an interview Wednesday, noting he was prevented from doing that by the First Amendment.

Lieu got attention a day earlier when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, assailing conservative claims of the tech giant's bias against them by reading positive and negative stories about Republican Reps. Steve Scalise (La.) and Steve King (Iowa), the latter of whom has repeatedly courted controversy with racially charged remarks."
Lieu: 'I Would Love to Be Able to R

"Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment Stops Me
Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) said he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" during an interview Wednesday, noting he was prevented from doing that by the First Amendment.

Lieu got attention a day earlier when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, assailing conservative claims of the tech giant's bias against them by reading positive and negative stories about Republican Reps. Steve Scalise (La.) and Steve King (Iowa), the latter of whom has repeatedly courted controversy with racially charged remarks."
[URL='https://freebeacon.com/politics/lieu-i-would-love-to-be-able-to-regulate-the-content-of-speech-but-the-first-amendment-stops-me/']Lieu: 'I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech' but First Amendment Stops Me

egulate the Content of Speech' but First Amendment Stops Me[/URL]

"It's a very good point you make," Lieu said. "I would love if I could have more than five minutes to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don't get that opportunity. However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech."

Yeah he doesn't think that the govt. should regulate speech.. You will make a fine democrat Polislick...