Income Inequailty Rhetoric is Class Warfare

[The Rabbi]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

yes, it did. in the economic boom of the eighties to mid-2000

I remember the boom of October 1987 very well.
How old are you to not know about this Reagan induced crash?
You know, forcing the banks to lend hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to manufacture all of our appliances.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

And a lot of the 90s sucked too.
Until Clinton got lucky with the DOT COM bubble.

It wasnt Reagan. It was George Bush.

 

[Indeependent]

yes, it did. in the economic boom of the eighties to mid-2000

I remember the boom of October 1987 very well.
How old are you to not know about this Reagan induced crash?
You know, forcing the banks to lend hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to manufacture all of our appliances.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

And a lot of the 90s sucked too.
Until Clinton got lucky with the DOT COM bubble.

It wasnt Reagan. It was George Bush.

It was both as part of a new trend to turn America into a financial engine.
I also remember Bush smiling when factories were moving to Poland.
The irony is that Bush said Supply Side was Voodoo economics, but I guess rivals always have to deride each other during primaries or when running for office.

Democrats do very stupid things also.

 

[The Rabbi]

I remember the boom of October 1987 very well.
How old are you to not know about this Reagan induced crash?
You know, forcing the banks to lend hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to manufacture all of our appliances.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

And a lot of the 90s sucked too.
Until Clinton got lucky with the DOT COM bubble.

It wasnt Reagan. It was George Bush.

It was both as part of a new trend to turn America into a financial engine.
I also remember Bush smiling when factories were moving to Poland.
The irony is that Bush said Supply Side was Voodoo economics, but I guess rivals always have to deride each other during primaries or when running for office.

Democrats do very stupid things also.

No, George W Bush. He caused the crash. He personally shipped factories to Poland. I saw pics of him loading bricks into the container ship.

 

[Erand7899]

Question why does a income gap need to be closed to bring people out of poverty?
Income inequality is a hollow rhetoric that its only purpose is to promote class warfare and income redistribution
Wealth is not finite it can be created there is not one pie that needs to be divided evenly

I will give an example how income inequality is a failed argument
lets say the poverty level is 20,000 per year. you have an individual who makes 15k a year and you want to bring him out of poverty. You have another individual who makes 100k a years so you have a 85k a year income gap between the two. Here is the question
is it better to take 10k from the 100k a year individual and give it to the 15k a year individual there for bring him out of poverty and establishing a 65k income gap, or is it better for the 15k a year individual create his own wealth and make 10k more a year to bring him up to 25k.
According to using a closure of a income gap as a measure of success it is best to take away from the 100k a year individual then to have the 15k individual create his own wealth because you would have an income gap of 65K instead of the 75k that you would have if he created his own wealth

You see why Income inequality/income gap is a hollow rhetoric a useless statistic that does nothing but create class envy and warfare

What if the guy who earns $100K a year earns it by means of a monopoly on gasoline and charges the $15K guy $20 for a gallon?

Perhaps this will clue you in to the difference between a natural concentration of wealth and an unnatural one. What we have today is an unnatural concentration of wealth.


And the REAL income gap is much, much more than $85K.

You only get an unnatural concentration of wealth when criminal activity, such as graft, corruption and/or theft, is involved. The expanding income inequality in America is simply the concept of compound interest (read return on investment), and can be easily explained with simple math and common sense.

a. The magic number for doubling wealth (or income from wealth) is 72. Divide the rate of return into 72, and the dividend is the number of years needed to double that investment. This applies equally for $1 or $1,000,000.

b. If you start with $1,000 and a 6% annual rate of return, you can double that investment in 12 years. You now have $2,000.

c. If you start with $10,000 and 6% annual rate of return, you also double that investment in 12 years. You now have $20,000.

d. If you start with $10,000,000, and the same rate of return, you double to $20,000,000 in those same 12 years.

Consequently, when you start at a higher point, the amount earned is far greater, and explains why the rich almost always get richer, regardless of the economic condition of the economy. No conspiracy, no unnatural advantage, just simple math.

 

[Vox]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

yes, it did. in the economic boom of the eighties to mid-2000

I remember the boom of October 1987 very well.
How old are you to not know about this Reagan induced crash?
You know, forcing the banks to lend hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to manufacture all of our appliances.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

And a lot of the 90s sucked too.
Until Clinton got lucky with the DOT COM bubble.

just admit that you are one sore loser and only socialist redistribution and increase in your foodstamps by obama made your life happy. finally.

 

[Indeependent]

It wasnt Reagan. It was George Bush.

It was both as part of a new trend to turn America into a financial engine.
I also remember Bush smiling when factories were moving to Poland.
The irony is that Bush said Supply Side was Voodoo economics, but I guess rivals always have to deride each other during primaries or when running for office.

Democrats do very stupid things also.

No, George W Bush. He caused the crash. He personally shipped factories to Poland. I saw pics of him loading bricks into the container ship.

Bush campaigned against Reagonomics and then practiced it with gusto.
Either Bush was lying during the primaries, which he wasn't because we both know Republicans NEVER lie, or he was rewarded for back peddling on his own rhetoric.

Bush has STILL got some pectorals, doesn't he?

 

[The Rabbi]

It was both as part of a new trend to turn America into a financial engine.
I also remember Bush smiling when factories were moving to Poland.
The irony is that Bush said Supply Side was Voodoo economics, but I guess rivals always have to deride each other during primaries or when running for office.

Democrats do very stupid things also.

No, George W Bush. He caused the crash. He personally shipped factories to Poland. I saw pics of him loading bricks into the container ship.

Bush campaigned against Reagonomics and then practiced it with gusto.
Either Bush was lying during the primaries, which he wasn't because we both know Republicans NEVER lie, or he was rewarded for back peddling on his own rhetoric.

Bush has STILL got some pectorals, doesn't he?

Bush was a liar. How else did he get elected to two terms after having served one already?

 

[kiwiman127]

Another lib bad at reading charts with tenuous connections to reality.

I read charts and stats for a living and do quite well at it. That's why I don't have all the time you do to post your or more than likely someone else's opinion.
Tell you what, why don't YOU tell me what these charts mean? You seem to have enough time on your hands.
Every chart I posted came from non-partisan resources. You should try it sometime.

Bullshit. Or you should be fired for gross incompetence.
The charts say nothing of the sort. They are statistical abstracts. You are assuming the charts represent the same people over and over. That is simply not true.
Look at the first chart, which is "household income". Now, how many people in a household? Two? One? 5? The answer is that it varies over time. The rise in the divorce rate, the rise in single person households will all affect "average" income.
The second chart purports to show "labor's share of income". Note it says nothign about actual income, only a measure in terms of something else. Yes, increasing mechanization/technology mean that instead of paying someone to man switchboard you buy a machine to do it instead. It certainly does not show middle class people getting screwed.
The third chart shows nothing like what you suggest. It does show that as governemnt has tried to "do something" about a recession it has actually made it worse and taken longer to recover.

Please show your post and this one to your bosses. If you are right then it will earn you a raise. If I am right you should be fired.

Wow! What a comeback!
Your comment about Chart 1 is absolutely absurd. An apartment with one person living in it is a household, a home with six people living it is a household. The Census Bureau simply counted all households, took the total incomes, broke the incomes into quintiles and used Real Dollars., What's so hard to figure out! It's pretty easy to see that the bottom three quintiles have been seeing flat wage growth for many decades. The second quintile has seen moderate growth compared to the top quintile and the top 5%.
The second chart is from the Federal Bank. Income is wages, salaries pension and insurance benefits and incentive-based compensation. Yes, technology is a contributor but that doesn't change the fact there is income inequality.
The third chart clearly shows that the last three recessions have taken longer to recover from than all previous recessions. Our most recent, was the deepest recession this country has suffered since the Great Depression. If you will look at the depth of the recessions in 1948 and 1957 and then compare these recovery times with the small recessions of 1990 and 2001 recovery times. In 1948 and 1957 incomes were growing. Workers today are making less than workers were making in the late 1970's in real dollars. A weakening middle class stalls economic growth. In other word income inequality is hurting our economy.
Earlier this week I posted articles from Forbes, Time and NBC Money all echoing the fact that flat wages are hurting this country's economic growth.
Oh and by the way, I manage my department. I'd have to fire myself! Your argument did nothing to disprove my analysis of the charts I provided, nothing.
I think you need to get a job to refresh your brain instead of spending all day on this board.

 

[Indeependent]

yes, it did. in the economic boom of the eighties to mid-2000

I remember the boom of October 1987 very well.
How old are you to not know about this Reagan induced crash?
You know, forcing the banks to lend hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to manufacture all of our appliances.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

And a lot of the 90s sucked too.
Until Clinton got lucky with the DOT COM bubble.

just admit that you are one sore loser and only socialist redistribution and increase in your foodstamps by obama made your life happy. finally.

I just discovered that The Rabbi is more honest than Vox!
On the other hand, I reward you with The Conservative title since you add-hahmownymd.

 

[The Rabbi]

I read charts and stats for a living and do quite well at it. That's why I don't have all the time you do to post your or more than likely someone else's opinion.
Tell you what, why don't YOU tell me what these charts mean? You seem to have enough time on your hands.
Every chart I posted came from non-partisan resources. You should try it sometime.

Bullshit. Or you should be fired for gross incompetence.
The charts say nothing of the sort. They are statistical abstracts. You are assuming the charts represent the same people over and over. That is simply not true.
Look at the first chart, which is "household income". Now, how many people in a household? Two? One? 5? The answer is that it varies over time. The rise in the divorce rate, the rise in single person households will all affect "average" income.
The second chart purports to show "labor's share of income". Note it says nothign about actual income, only a measure in terms of something else. Yes, increasing mechanization/technology mean that instead of paying someone to man switchboard you buy a machine to do it instead. It certainly does not show middle class people getting screwed.
The third chart shows nothing like what you suggest. It does show that as governemnt has tried to "do something" about a recession it has actually made it worse and taken longer to recover.

Please show your post and this one to your bosses. If you are right then it will earn you a raise. If I am right you should be fired.

Wow! What a comeback!
Your comment about Chart 1 is absolutely absurd. An apartment with one person living in it is a household, a home with six people living it is a household. The Census Bureau simply counted all households, took the total incomes, broke the incomes into quintiles and used Real Dollars., What's so hard to figure out! It's pretty easy to see that the bottom three quintiles have been seeing flat wage growth for many decades. The second quintile has seen moderate growth compared to the top quintile and the top 5%.
The second chart is from the Federal Bank. Income is wages, salaries pension and insurance benefits and incentive-based compensation. Yes, technology is a contributor but that doesn't change the fact there is income inequality.
The third chart clearly shows that the last three recessions have taken longer to recover from than all previous recessions. Our most recent, was the deepest recession this country has suffered since the Great Depression. If you will look at the depth of the recessions in 1948 and 1957 and then compare these recovery times with the 1990 and 2001 recovery times. In 1948 and 1957 incomes were growing. Workers today are making less than workers were making in the late 1970's in real dollars. A weakening middle class stalls economic growth. In other word income inequality is hurting our economy.
Earlier this week I posted articles from Forbes, Time and NBC Money all echoing the fact that flat wages are hurting this country's economic growth.
Oh and by the way, I manage my department. I'd have to fire myself! Your argument did nothing to disprove my analysis of the charts I provided, nothing.
I need you need to get a job to refresh your brain instead of spending all day on this board.

You clearly didnt understand my point.
Instead of wasting your time and your employer's money why don't you sit here and read my posts all day and get an education?

 

[Vox]

I remember the boom of October 1987 very well.
How old are you to not know about this Reagan induced crash?
You know, forcing the banks to lend hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to manufacture all of our appliances.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

And a lot of the 90s sucked too.
Until Clinton got lucky with the DOT COM bubble.

just admit that you are one sore loser and only socialist redistribution and increase in your foodstamps by obama made your life happy. finally.

I just discovered that The Rabbi is more honest than Vox!
On the other hand, I reward you with The Conservative title since you add-hahmownymd.

so you agree you are finally happy with a handout. good.

now go get a cookie.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Question why does a income gap need to be closed to bring people out of poverty?
Income inequality is a hollow rhetoric that its only purpose is to promote class warfare and income redistribution
Wealth is not finite it can be created there is not one pie that needs to be divided evenly

I will give an example how income inequality is a failed argument
lets say the poverty level is 20,000 per year. you have an individual who makes 15k a year and you want to bring him out of poverty. You have another individual who makes 100k a years so you have a 85k a year income gap between the two. Here is the question
is it better to take 10k from the 100k a year individual and give it to the 15k a year individual there for bring him out of poverty and establishing a 65k income gap, or is it better for the 15k a year individual create his own wealth and make 10k more a year to bring him up to 25k.
According to using a closure of a income gap as a measure of success it is best to take away from the 100k a year individual then to have the 15k individual create his own wealth because you would have an income gap of 65K instead of the 75k that you would have if he created his own wealth

You see why Income inequality/income gap is a hollow rhetoric a useless statistic that does nothing but create class envy and warfare

What if the guy who earns $100K a year earns it by means of a monopoly on gasoline and charges the $15K guy $20 for a gallon?

Perhaps this will clue you in to the difference between a natural concentration of wealth and an unnatural one. What we have today is an unnatural concentration of wealth.


And the REAL income gap is much, much more than $85K.

You only get an unnatural concentration of wealth when criminal activity, such as graft, corruption and/or theft, is involved. The expanding income inequality in America is simply the concept of compound interest (read return on investment), and can be easily explained with simple math and common sense.

a. The magic number for doubling wealth (or income from wealth) is 72. Divide the rate of return into 72, and the dividend is the number of years needed to double that investment. This applies equally for $1 or $1,000,000.

b. If you start with $1,000 and a 6% annual rate of return, you can double that investment in 12 years. You now have $2,000.

c. If you start with $10,000 and 6% annual rate of return, you also double that investment in 12 years. You now have $20,000.

d. If you start with $10,000,000, and the same rate of return, you double to $20,000,000 in those same 12 years.

Consequently, when you start at a higher point, the amount earned is far greater, and explains why the rich almost always get richer, regardless of the economic condition of the economy. No conspiracy, no unnatural advantage, just simple math.

Oh.pease are you that stupid and didn't take in the equation of your math of the feds pumping in 85 billioon a.month into wall street a month? All Obama and the feds are doing is making Wall street rich with monopoly money and making main street poor.

 

[Indeependent]

just admit that you are one sore loser and only socialist redistribution and increase in your foodstamps by obama made your life happy. finally.

I just discovered that The Rabbi is more honest than Vox!
On the other hand, I reward you with The Conservative title since you add-hahmownymd.

so you agree you are finally happy with a handout. good.

now go get a cookie.

Wow! A CONSERVATIVE Conservative!
Just admit you have MAJOR gaps in your historical knowledge.
Didn't know about Oct 1987!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP LISTENING TO RUSH!

 

[The Rabbi]

I just discovered that The Rabbi is more honest than Vox!
On the other hand, I reward you with The Conservative title since you add-hahmownymd.

so you agree you are finally happy with a handout. good.

now go get a cookie.

Wow! A CONSERVATIVE Conservative!
Just admit you have MAJOR gaps in your historical knowledge.
Didn't know about Oct 1987!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP LISTENING TO RUSH!

I'll bet he doesn't realize George W Bush engineered all of it from the CIA.

 

[Mustang]

Conservatives must think that people are idiots if they expect others to believe that workers can be engaging in class warfare just by noting an increasing disparity in pay when they have no control over it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It is artifical make believe money... and the Feds get interest off of it. And the world is copying off of what the feds are doing. It is starting to create.a big bubble and they never end good.

 

[Indeependent]

Conservatives must think that people are idiots if they expect others to believe that workers can be engaging in class warfare just by noting an increasing disparity in pay when they have no control over it.

Well, their usual overwhelming response that you're stupid if you say anything.
So SHUT UP!

 

[Vox]

I just discovered that The Rabbi is more honest than Vox!
On the other hand, I reward you with The Conservative title since you add-hahmownymd.

so you agree you are finally happy with a handout. good.

now go get a cookie.

Wow! A CONSERVATIVE Conservative!
Just admit you have MAJOR gaps in your historical knowledge.
Didn't know about Oct 1987!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP LISTENING TO RUSH!

make it all red, size 5 font, otherwise your shrieking is barely heard.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Conservatives must think that people are idiots if they expect others to believe that workers can be engaging in class warfare just by noting an increasing disparity in pay when they have no control over it.

How about they earn it instead of text on there phone and ask do you want Fries with that?

 

[Vox]

so you agree you are finally happy with a handout. good.

now go get a cookie.

Wow! A CONSERVATIVE Conservative!
Just admit you have MAJOR gaps in your historical knowledge.
Didn't know about Oct 1987!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP LISTENING TO RUSH!

I'll bet he doesn't realize George W Bush engineered all of it from the CIA.

he is taking it for real