Yeah...He Said That!

[Rinata]

1. First, Rin-Tin-Tin, that's Ms. DumbBroad to you!!


2. "... looking for some ridiculous reason to attack the president..."
Matthew 7:7 ...seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.


3. "...so that you can blow it completely out of proportion."

I believe that attacks by this empty suit on the free market and capitalism is a pretty big deal.
Don't you?


4. "Must be your need for attention."
Maybe a little....thanks for providing same.


5. "Your anti-Obama threads are getting more and more silly."

Hey....look at the bright side: you'll only have to put up with 'em for less than a month!



BTW....remember way back when you had an avi with the picture of the pretender in the people's house....and I asked when you were gonna get rid of it?Well...glad you listened to me?
This one is so much classier.

No, I don't. This is a perfect example of why I tell you to get over yourself. You are very forgettable. It's kind of sad. I might feel bad for you if I thought you had any redeeming qualities.

I look forward to the gift of your sympathy.


I might even return it November 7th.

Don't count on it. You have a better chance of growing a brain and that is not likely.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, I don't. This is a perfect example of why I tell you to get over yourself. You are very forgettable. It's kind of sad. I might feel bad for you if I thought you had any redeeming qualities.

I look forward to the gift of your sympathy.


I might even return it November 7th.

Don't count on it. You have a better chance of growing a brain and that is not likely.

What would I do with two????

You are the most intelligent person in the world [citation needed].

 

[Bfgrn]

1. "Why is it that the Democrats can’t stop telling us that “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that” is not what the president meant to say? Could it be that they’re afraid this clumsy attempt at an ad lib by Teleprompter Man could be dooming their chances this November?

2. Rarely does a day go by without some Democratic Party house newsletter — New York magazine, The New York Times — screechingly informing us how unfair Republicans are being in quoting President Obama’s infamous speech at the Roanoke Fire Department on July 13. If Mitt Romney wins, there will be a plaque there, kinda like the one near the Chicago Baskin-Robbins where Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson had their first kiss.




3. “There’s just nothing to it, and they hit it over and over,” Time’s Mark Halperin whined on CNN Thursday.

4. But there was something to it, a lot to it. And far from being taken out of context, the speech, when you reverse the zoom lens from a single phrase to the general theme, becomes even more disturbing.

5. “You didn’t build that” is indeed a fair summary of the overarching message.
The full quotation that liberals find perfectly reasonable is this: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help,” Obama said. “There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”





6. Obama is painting a frankly Marxist picture in which through sheer luck (say, inheriting a factory), rich layabouts, whom he calls the top 2%, are making fortunes while others toil. “Somebody else” is responsible for the success of successful entrepreneurs.

7. ...46% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.
The top 1 percent pay 37% of all federal income taxes. So each of those horrible selfish plutocrats, along with the burden of their monocles and top hats, is carrying 36 other Americans on his back. They are their brothers’ keeper, and their sisters’, and their cousins’, and about five other families’. Why does Obama hate these saints?


8. The 1 percenters aren’t choking traffic with 37% of the cars or crowding classrooms with 37% of the pupils. (Which have been so ruined by Obama-type thinking that the rich often choose private education in the first place and owe nothing to the public schools, whose costs they don’t even get a refund for.) The rich and small business owners (there is much overlap) are the ones who, to a hugely disproportionate degree, pay for the things Obama suggests they don’t pay for at all — because “somebody else” did it for them.





9. A more honest speech would have been directed at the underclass and informed them: “Look, somebody else built those roads you use. Somebody else is paying for that welfare check you’re getting every month. Respect those who stayed in school, worked hard and delayed gratification. Try to learn something from them.”




10. ...— graduate high school, get married and delay having children until your 20s — the poverty rate virtually vanishes. Only 8% of those who play by these basic American rules turn out poor.

It turns out that if you’re stuck in the poverty trap, yes, you probably did build that."
‘You didn’t build that’ - NYPOST.com



My buddy Boo made me post this....maybe he'll stop denying that that's what Obama said.....

Hey PC, did these 1% ers send 37% of the sons and daughters that went off to fight two wars? 11 years ago today, did these 1% ers send 37% of the brave heroes who charged up the stairs of the twin towers, knowing they were running toward their own doom?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Why is it that the Democrats can’t stop telling us that “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that” is not what the president meant to say? Could it be that they’re afraid this clumsy attempt at an ad lib by Teleprompter Man could be dooming their chances this November?

2. Rarely does a day go by without some Democratic Party house newsletter — New York magazine, The New York Times — screechingly informing us how unfair Republicans are being in quoting President Obama’s infamous speech at the Roanoke Fire Department on July 13. If Mitt Romney wins, there will be a plaque there, kinda like the one near the Chicago Baskin-Robbins where Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson had their first kiss.




3. “There’s just nothing to it, and they hit it over and over,” Time’s Mark Halperin whined on CNN Thursday.

4. But there was something to it, a lot to it. And far from being taken out of context, the speech, when you reverse the zoom lens from a single phrase to the general theme, becomes even more disturbing.

5. “You didn’t build that” is indeed a fair summary of the overarching message.
The full quotation that liberals find perfectly reasonable is this: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help,” Obama said. “There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”





6. Obama is painting a frankly Marxist picture in which through sheer luck (say, inheriting a factory), rich layabouts, whom he calls the top 2%, are making fortunes while others toil. “Somebody else” is responsible for the success of successful entrepreneurs.

7. ...46% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.
The top 1 percent pay 37% of all federal income taxes. So each of those horrible selfish plutocrats, along with the burden of their monocles and top hats, is carrying 36 other Americans on his back. They are their brothers’ keeper, and their sisters’, and their cousins’, and about five other families’. Why does Obama hate these saints?


8. The 1 percenters aren’t choking traffic with 37% of the cars or crowding classrooms with 37% of the pupils. (Which have been so ruined by Obama-type thinking that the rich often choose private education in the first place and owe nothing to the public schools, whose costs they don’t even get a refund for.) The rich and small business owners (there is much overlap) are the ones who, to a hugely disproportionate degree, pay for the things Obama suggests they don’t pay for at all — because “somebody else” did it for them.





9. A more honest speech would have been directed at the underclass and informed them: “Look, somebody else built those roads you use. Somebody else is paying for that welfare check you’re getting every month. Respect those who stayed in school, worked hard and delayed gratification. Try to learn something from them.”




10. ...— graduate high school, get married and delay having children until your 20s — the poverty rate virtually vanishes. Only 8% of those who play by these basic American rules turn out poor.

It turns out that if you’re stuck in the poverty trap, yes, you probably did build that."
‘You didn’t build that’ - NYPOST.com



My buddy Boo made me post this....maybe he'll stop denying that that's what Obama said.....

Hey PC, did these 1% ers send 37% of the sons and daughters that went off to fight two wars? 11 years ago today, did these 1% ers send 37% of the brave heroes who charged up the stairs of the twin towers, knowing they were running toward their own doom?

The United States is characterized by enormous social and financial mobility. It is far more common for folks to move up and down in quintiles than to remain in same.

In short...there is no "1%" in reality....merely a snapshot in time, fool.

You have been trained to joust at windmills, Don Quixote.....just another reliable Democrat voter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democrats can't even tell the truth about the crap they say themselves. It's like they think we're stupid or something.

i like being able to fire people

It is nice to have the power to fire people if you are the boss.....Not being able to fire teachers is one of the main reasons our schools are so bad.



.

If you'd offer yourself up as an example of what's wrong with our educational system,

it would go a long ways to helping you make a decent argument in that regard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's always amusing to see what the rightwing nuts think matters.

 

[Bfgrn]

1. "Why is it that the Democrats can’t stop telling us that “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that” is not what the president meant to say? Could it be that they’re afraid this clumsy attempt at an ad lib by Teleprompter Man could be dooming their chances this November?

2. Rarely does a day go by without some Democratic Party house newsletter — New York magazine, The New York Times — screechingly informing us how unfair Republicans are being in quoting President Obama’s infamous speech at the Roanoke Fire Department on July 13. If Mitt Romney wins, there will be a plaque there, kinda like the one near the Chicago Baskin-Robbins where Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson had their first kiss.




3. “There’s just nothing to it, and they hit it over and over,” Time’s Mark Halperin whined on CNN Thursday.

4. But there was something to it, a lot to it. And far from being taken out of context, the speech, when you reverse the zoom lens from a single phrase to the general theme, becomes even more disturbing.

5. “You didn’t build that” is indeed a fair summary of the overarching message.
The full quotation that liberals find perfectly reasonable is this: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help,” Obama said. “There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”





6. Obama is painting a frankly Marxist picture in which through sheer luck (say, inheriting a factory), rich layabouts, whom he calls the top 2%, are making fortunes while others toil. “Somebody else” is responsible for the success of successful entrepreneurs.

7. ...46% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.
The top 1 percent pay 37% of all federal income taxes. So each of those horrible selfish plutocrats, along with the burden of their monocles and top hats, is carrying 36 other Americans on his back. They are their brothers’ keeper, and their sisters’, and their cousins’, and about five other families’. Why does Obama hate these saints?


8. The 1 percenters aren’t choking traffic with 37% of the cars or crowding classrooms with 37% of the pupils. (Which have been so ruined by Obama-type thinking that the rich often choose private education in the first place and owe nothing to the public schools, whose costs they don’t even get a refund for.) The rich and small business owners (there is much overlap) are the ones who, to a hugely disproportionate degree, pay for the things Obama suggests they don’t pay for at all — because “somebody else” did it for them.





9. A more honest speech would have been directed at the underclass and informed them: “Look, somebody else built those roads you use. Somebody else is paying for that welfare check you’re getting every month. Respect those who stayed in school, worked hard and delayed gratification. Try to learn something from them.”




10. ...— graduate high school, get married and delay having children until your 20s — the poverty rate virtually vanishes. Only 8% of those who play by these basic American rules turn out poor.

It turns out that if you’re stuck in the poverty trap, yes, you probably did build that."
‘You didn’t build that’ - NYPOST.com



My buddy Boo made me post this....maybe he'll stop denying that that's what Obama said.....

Hey PC, did these 1% ers send 37% of the sons and daughters that went off to fight two wars? 11 years ago today, did these 1% ers send 37% of the brave heroes who charged up the stairs of the twin towers, knowing they were running toward their own doom?

The United States is characterized by enormous social and financial mobility. It is far more common for folks to move up and down in quintiles than to remain in same.

In short...there is no "1%" in reality....merely a snapshot in time, fool.

You have been trained to joust at windmills, Don Quixote.....just another reliable Democrat voter.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The rhetoric is relentless: America is a place of unparalleled opportunity, where hard work and determination can propel a child out of humble beginnings into the White House, or at least a mansion on a hill.

But the reality is very different, according to a University of Michigan researcher who is studying inequality across generations around the world.

“Especially in the United States, people underestimate the extent to which your destiny is linked to your background”

The U.S. data come from the ISR Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a survey of a nationally representative sample that started with 5,000 U.S. families in 1968.

He found that parental wealth plays an important role in whether children move up or down the socioeconomic ladder in adulthood. And that parental wealth has an influence above and beyond the three factors that sociologists and economists have traditionally considered in research on social mobility – parental education, income and occupation.

“Wealth not only fulfills a purchasing function, allowing families to buy homes in good neighborhoods and send their children to costly schools and colleges, for example, but it also has an insurance function, offering a sort of private safety net that gives children a very different set of choices as they enter the adult world,” Pfeffer says.

“Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. provides exceptional opportunities for upward mobility, these data show that parental wealth has an important role in shielding offspring from downward mobility and sustaining their upward mobility in the U.S. no less than in countries like Germany and Sweden, where parental wealth also serves as a private safety net that not even the more generous European public programs and social services seem to provide.”

Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show | ISR Sampler

 

[The Rabbi]

You understand your citation doesn't prove what you want it to prove, right?

All anyone has to do is compare the Fortune 400 wealthiest people 25 years ago to today to see the differences.

 

[PredFan]

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t – look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

It's a flat out lie to say the President was talking about anyones' business. But that's what the Conz do isn't it?

You gotta look at this kind of thing and marvel about the way the human mind works sometimes. Here is an Obama Kool Aid drinker quoting what obama actually said, and then claiming it doesn't say what it clearly does.

I mean, it's scary, yes, to think that this is what people who vote think, but yet it's fascinating in a way as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t – look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

It's a flat out lie to say the President was talking about anyones' business. But that's what the Conz do isn't it?

You gotta look at this kind of thing and marvel about the way the human mind works sometimes. Here is an Obama Kool Aid drinker quoting what obama actually said, and then claiming it doesn't say what it clearly does.

I mean, it's scary, yes, to think that this is what people who vote think, but yet it's fascinating in a way as well.

Seriously. I wonder what people who support Obama think this means. Do they think it means Al Gore invented the internet?
What I suspect is that they actually agree with Obama but can't admit it.

 

[Jroc]

You understand your citation doesn't prove what you want it to prove, right?

All anyone has to do is compare the Fortune 400 wealthiest people 25 years ago to today to see the differences.

Obama's goal is to limit upward mobility...He'd like everyone to be in his definition of the "middle class", while select few in the government decide how much money we are allowed to make


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpoTSeuLffA]Obama says at some point you've made enough money - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

It's the basic view of the Left: There is only a fixed amount of wealth that gets distributed. It can be distributed either through the market, which results in large inequalities. Or it can be distributed by gov't fiat, which is "fair".
Never mind every part of that is total melarkey, and something that means melarkey. It is what they believe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey PC, did these 1% ers send 37% of the sons and daughters that went off to fight two wars? 11 years ago today, did these 1% ers send 37% of the brave heroes who charged up the stairs of the twin towers, knowing they were running toward their own doom?

The United States is characterized by enormous social and financial mobility. It is far more common for folks to move up and down in quintiles than to remain in same.

In short...there is no "1%" in reality....merely a snapshot in time, fool.

You have been trained to joust at windmills, Don Quixote.....just another reliable Democrat voter.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The rhetoric is relentless: America is a place of unparalleled opportunity, where hard work and determination can propel a child out of humble beginnings into the White House, or at least a mansion on a hill.

But the reality is very different, according to a University of Michigan researcher who is studying inequality across generations around the world.

“Especially in the United States, people underestimate the extent to which your destiny is linked to your background”

The U.S. data come from the ISR Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a survey of a nationally representative sample that started with 5,000 U.S. families in 1968.

He found that parental wealth plays an important role in whether children move up or down the socioeconomic ladder in adulthood. And that parental wealth has an influence above and beyond the three factors that sociologists and economists have traditionally considered in research on social mobility – parental education, income and occupation.

“Wealth not only fulfills a purchasing function, allowing families to buy homes in good neighborhoods and send their children to costly schools and colleges, for example, but it also has an insurance function, offering a sort of private safety net that gives children a very different set of choices as they enter the adult world,” Pfeffer says.

“Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. provides exceptional opportunities for upward mobility, these data show that parental wealth has an important role in shielding offspring from downward mobility and sustaining their upward mobility in the U.S. no less than in countries like Germany and Sweden, where parental wealth also serves as a private safety net that not even the more generous European public programs and social services seem to provide.”

Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show | ISR Sampler

1. There could be no better example of Coulter's description of liberals than BoringFriendlessGuy!!!
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican..."
Coulter

2. If you didn't come here of your own free will to portray the ignorance of Liberals, I'd have to drag you over!!
Oh, man do you make me look smart!!!

a. Have you researched who Diane Swanbrow is? Nobody, that's who.





3. In reading one of Dr. Thomas Sowell's tomes, I came across the following...chapter five of "Economic Facts and Fallacies."

a. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” HTTP Error 404 - File or Directory Not Found - Dallas Fed


b. Study of the transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.


c. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. HTTP Error 404 - File or Directory Not Found - Dallas Fed




4. The U of Michigan study noted by the Dallas Fed, followed tens of thousands of individuals over a period of decades. Only 5% of those in the bottom 20% remained there 16 years later; during that same period, 29% had risen all the way into the top quintile. And, more than half had been in the top quintile at some point during those years.




5. Then there is the kind socioeconomic mobility in which people born into low-income families rise to higher income or occupational levels than their parents. On the one hand, there are those who seek out factors which inhibit progress, and attribute same to an oppressive society.

a. First, are the neutral factors of circumstance: someone born deaf is unlikely to become a musician. Physical or mental handicaps beyond one’s control reduce the chance of using opportunities which may be available in society.

b. Cultural values, inherited socially rather than biologically, may also reduce the statistical probability of advancing, even when opportunity is available.

c. Goals and priorities influence success: one raised in a home where physical prowess is valued over intellectual prowess dictate part of the calculation.

"...there are those who seek out factors which inhibit progress, and attribute same to an oppressive society." Hey....that's you!


Yesterday, you proved to be a liar, today, simply uneducated!

Bravo!!!

A star in the Liberal firmament!

 

[Bfgrn]

The United States is characterized by enormous social and financial mobility. It is far more common for folks to move up and down in quintiles than to remain in same.

In short...there is no "1%" in reality....merely a snapshot in time, fool.

You have been trained to joust at windmills, Don Quixote.....just another reliable Democrat voter.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The rhetoric is relentless: America is a place of unparalleled opportunity, where hard work and determination can propel a child out of humble beginnings into the White House, or at least a mansion on a hill.

But the reality is very different, according to a University of Michigan researcher who is studying inequality across generations around the world.

“Especially in the United States, people underestimate the extent to which your destiny is linked to your background”

The U.S. data come from the ISR Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a survey of a nationally representative sample that started with 5,000 U.S. families in 1968.

He found that parental wealth plays an important role in whether children move up or down the socioeconomic ladder in adulthood. And that parental wealth has an influence above and beyond the three factors that sociologists and economists have traditionally considered in research on social mobility – parental education, income and occupation.

“Wealth not only fulfills a purchasing function, allowing families to buy homes in good neighborhoods and send their children to costly schools and colleges, for example, but it also has an insurance function, offering a sort of private safety net that gives children a very different set of choices as they enter the adult world,” Pfeffer says.

“Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. provides exceptional opportunities for upward mobility, these data show that parental wealth has an important role in shielding offspring from downward mobility and sustaining their upward mobility in the U.S. no less than in countries like Germany and Sweden, where parental wealth also serves as a private safety net that not even the more generous European public programs and social services seem to provide.”

Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show | ISR Sampler

1. There could be no better example of Coulter's description of liberals than BoringFriendlessGuy!!!
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican..."
Coulter

2. If you didn't come here of your own free will to portray the ignorance of Liberals, I'd have to drag you over!!
Oh, man do you make me look smart!!!

a. Have you researched who Diane Swanbrow is? Nobody, that's who.





3. In reading one of Dr. Thomas Sowell's tomes, I came across the following...chapter five of "Economic Facts and Fallacies."

a. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” HTTP Error 404 - File or Directory Not Found - Dallas Fed


b. Study of the transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.


c. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. HTTP Error 404 - File or Directory Not Found - Dallas Fed




4. The U of Michigan study noted by the Dallas Fed, followed tens of thousands of individuals over a period of decades. Only 5% of those in the bottom 20% remained there 16 years later; during that same period, 29% had risen all the way into the top quintile. And, more than half had been in the top quintile at some point during those years.




5. Then there is the kind socioeconomic mobility in which people born into low-income families rise to higher income or occupational levels than their parents. On the one hand, there are those who seek out factors which inhibit progress, and attribute same to an oppressive society.

a. First, are the neutral factors of circumstance: someone born deaf is unlikely to become a musician. Physical or mental handicaps beyond one’s control reduce the chance of using opportunities which may be available in society.

b. Cultural values, inherited socially rather than biologically, may also reduce the statistical probability of advancing, even when opportunity is available.

c. Goals and priorities influence success: one raised in a home where physical prowess is valued over intellectual prowess dictate part of the calculation.

"...there are those who seek out factors which inhibit progress, and attribute same to an oppressive society." Hey....that's you!


Yesterday, you proved to be a liar, today, simply uneducated!

Bravo!!!

A star in the Liberal firmament!

WOW, dead links, and statistics for 1991? The only thing that can be said on your behalf is at least you have moved into the 20th century.

Have you paid attention the the 21 years since PC? The 90's were good, Clinton created 23 million jobs, the best jobs creation record of any modern President. But what followed was the Bush era and the GOP dominated decade. How did Bush and the Republicans do you may ask?

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

Washington Post
Saturday, January 2, 2010

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

"This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

Here is a very recent report on the middle class PC, 21st century.

August 22, 2012
Fewer, Poorer, Gloomier
The Lost Decade of the Middle Class

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

As the 2012 presidential candidates prepare their closing arguments to America’s middle class, they are courting a group that has endured a lost decade for economic well-being. Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future.

A Decade of Decline
Middle-Tier Median Household Income Falls
… Median Net Worth Plummets …

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/08/pew-social-trends-lost-decade-of-the-middle-class.pdf

 

[Jroc]

Clinton created 23 million jobs,

Unless those "23 million" were governement jobs Clinton didn't "create" shit...idiot

 

[Bfgrn]

Clinton created 23 million jobs,

Unless those "23 million" were governement jobs Clinton didn't "create" shit...idiot

Even your beloved Wall Street Journal acknowledges Clinton and chastises Bush.

January 9, 2009, 12:04 PM ET

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
By WSJ Staff

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.

Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.

 

[The Rabbi]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The rhetoric is relentless: America is a place of unparalleled opportunity, where hard work and determination can propel a child out of humble beginnings into the White House, or at least a mansion on a hill.

But the reality is very different, according to a University of Michigan researcher who is studying inequality across generations around the world.

“Especially in the United States, people underestimate the extent to which your destiny is linked to your background”

The U.S. data come from the ISR Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a survey of a nationally representative sample that started with 5,000 U.S. families in 1968.

He found that parental wealth plays an important role in whether children move up or down the socioeconomic ladder in adulthood. And that parental wealth has an influence above and beyond the three factors that sociologists and economists have traditionally considered in research on social mobility – parental education, income and occupation.

“Wealth not only fulfills a purchasing function, allowing families to buy homes in good neighborhoods and send their children to costly schools and colleges, for example, but it also has an insurance function, offering a sort of private safety net that gives children a very different set of choices as they enter the adult world,” Pfeffer says.

“Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. provides exceptional opportunities for upward mobility, these data show that parental wealth has an important role in shielding offspring from downward mobility and sustaining their upward mobility in the U.S. no less than in countries like Germany and Sweden, where parental wealth also serves as a private safety net that not even the more generous European public programs and social services seem to provide.”

Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show | ISR Sampler

1. There could be no better example of Coulter's description of liberals than BoringFriendlessGuy!!!
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican..."
Coulter

2. If you didn't come here of your own free will to portray the ignorance of Liberals, I'd have to drag you over!!
Oh, man do you make me look smart!!!

a. Have you researched who Diane Swanbrow is? Nobody, that's who.





3. In reading one of Dr. Thomas Sowell's tomes, I came across the following...chapter five of "Economic Facts and Fallacies."

a. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” HTTP Error 404 - File or Directory Not Found - Dallas Fed


b. Study of the transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.


c. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. HTTP Error 404 - File or Directory Not Found - Dallas Fed




4. The U of Michigan study noted by the Dallas Fed, followed tens of thousands of individuals over a period of decades. Only 5% of those in the bottom 20% remained there 16 years later; during that same period, 29% had risen all the way into the top quintile. And, more than half had been in the top quintile at some point during those years.




5. Then there is the kind socioeconomic mobility in which people born into low-income families rise to higher income or occupational levels than their parents. On the one hand, there are those who seek out factors which inhibit progress, and attribute same to an oppressive society.

a. First, are the neutral factors of circumstance: someone born deaf is unlikely to become a musician. Physical or mental handicaps beyond one’s control reduce the chance of using opportunities which may be available in society.

b. Cultural values, inherited socially rather than biologically, may also reduce the statistical probability of advancing, even when opportunity is available.

c. Goals and priorities influence success: one raised in a home where physical prowess is valued over intellectual prowess dictate part of the calculation.

"...there are those who seek out factors which inhibit progress, and attribute same to an oppressive society." Hey....that's you!


Yesterday, you proved to be a liar, today, simply uneducated!

Bravo!!!

A star in the Liberal firmament!

WOW, dead links, and statistics for 1991? The only thing that can be said on your behalf is at least you have moved into the 20th century.

Have you paid attention the the 21 years since PC? The 90's were good, Clinton created 23 million jobs, the best jobs creation record of any modern President. But what followed was the Bush era and the GOP dominated decade. How did Bush and the Republicans do you may ask?

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

Washington Post
Saturday, January 2, 2010

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

"This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers


]

You understand the problems with the data they use, right?
No, of course not. Stats are clearly not your strong point.

 

[Bfgrn]

1. There could be no better example of Coulter's description of liberals than BoringFriendlessGuy!!!
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican..."
Coulter

2. If you didn't come here of your own free will to portray the ignorance of Liberals, I'd have to drag you over!!
Oh, man do you make me look smart!!!

a. Have you researched who Diane Swanbrow is? Nobody, that's who.





3. In reading one of Dr. Thomas Sowell's tomes, I came across the following...chapter five of "Economic Facts and Fallacies."

a. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” HTTP Error 404 - File or Directory Not Found - Dallas Fed


b. Study of the transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.


c. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. HTTP Error 404 - File or Directory Not Found - Dallas Fed




4. The U of Michigan study noted by the Dallas Fed, followed tens of thousands of individuals over a period of decades. Only 5% of those in the bottom 20% remained there 16 years later; during that same period, 29% had risen all the way into the top quintile. And, more than half had been in the top quintile at some point during those years.




5. Then there is the kind socioeconomic mobility in which people born into low-income families rise to higher income or occupational levels than their parents. On the one hand, there are those who seek out factors which inhibit progress, and attribute same to an oppressive society.

a. First, are the neutral factors of circumstance: someone born deaf is unlikely to become a musician. Physical or mental handicaps beyond one’s control reduce the chance of using opportunities which may be available in society.

b. Cultural values, inherited socially rather than biologically, may also reduce the statistical probability of advancing, even when opportunity is available.

c. Goals and priorities influence success: one raised in a home where physical prowess is valued over intellectual prowess dictate part of the calculation.

"...there are those who seek out factors which inhibit progress, and attribute same to an oppressive society." Hey....that's you!


Yesterday, you proved to be a liar, today, simply uneducated!

Bravo!!!

A star in the Liberal firmament!

WOW, dead links, and statistics for 1991? The only thing that can be said on your behalf is at least you have moved into the 20th century.

Have you paid attention the the 21 years since PC? The 90's were good, Clinton created 23 million jobs, the best jobs creation record of any modern President. But what followed was the Bush era and the GOP dominated decade. How did Bush and the Republicans do you may ask?

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

Washington Post
Saturday, January 2, 2010

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

"This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers


]

You understand the problems with the data they use, right?
No, of course not. Stats are clearly not your strong point.

Oh my gosh, I should take heed from someone like Rabbi. The modern day Einstein...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

 

[The Rabbi]

WOW, dead links, and statistics for 1991? The only thing that can be said on your behalf is at least you have moved into the 20th century.

Have you paid attention the the 21 years since PC? The 90's were good, Clinton created 23 million jobs, the best jobs creation record of any modern President. But what followed was the Bush era and the GOP dominated decade. How did Bush and the Republicans do you may ask?

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

Washington Post
Saturday, January 2, 2010

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

"This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers


]

You understand the problems with the data they use, right?
No, of course not. Stats are clearly not your strong point.

Oh my gosh, I should take heed from someone like Rabbi. The modern day Einstein...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

You need to memorize everything I write here because it will give you the education you never got and so desperately need to play with the big boys and girls.