Income inequality is fine by me.

[Antares]

Seriously though you kids want everything handed to you without having to actually earn it.

 

[Indeependent]

oh, I knew that brainwashed leftard idiot like yourself can not live without Bush.

those were good times - unemployment under 5% and GDP growth over 3%.

Miss him? sure. everybody does.

Really? Sorry, pal, his end was BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

not as bad as this total failure we have to endure 3 more years

Unlike you I blame Clinton, GW and Obama for what's going on today.

 

[Londoner]

ceos didnt become super heroes

True dat. Our best and brightest on Wall Street pulled down billions of dollars betting on mortgages and derivatives they knew to be junk. And right before the bubble burst, they placed massive bets on the failure of the housing market, so they could bank off the destruction of the economy. These people profited by spreading criminal levels of risk, then they parachuted to safety as the risk exploded and sank the global economy. Reagan promised the opposite. He said that if you rewarded the profit motive (and removed regulations), than we would see miraculous economic growth that lifted all boats. Who knew that he was unleashing predators on the stupid?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I've read alot of fair points by both sides in this thread. Sadly there is just as much clear envy and nonsense, mostly by the left.

One poster in particular nailed it imo. If you want the uber wealthy to have less influence then you have to rein in the politicians. And the ONLY way that will ever happen is with term limits & publicly funded elections. That last part was mine.

The rich only hold as much power as Pelosi, Paul or any of the other ppoliticians SELL them.

As for all the ludicrous excuses for why people get d's or f's in life....... well, get bent. I ain't buying the bullshit your selling. If I can get out of prision and own a successful business within a few years there is no god damn excuse for anyone else other than mental or physical handicaps. The rest of you just aren't applying yourself hard enough, PERIOD.

 

[francoHFW]

HELLO...Reaganism is the problem- only the rich have any money to spend- and they AREN'T- see sig para 3...

Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...Memorize the facts, hater dupes:

1. WORKERS 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% – Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 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% – Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% 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% – Reagan1982 = 11.2% – Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 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 Probabilityy 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.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

 

[jasonnfree]

If the wealthy make rules to benefit themselves only and not allow anyone else to become wealthy, then no one would become wealthy. We know that's not true. For some reason immigrants can come here, not even knowing the language, and become very wealthy.

The rich won't let me, is the mark of someone without ambition, motivation or even interest in bettering their own lives. It's like the losing football team claiming that their inability to score is the fault of the opposing team not letting them get a touchdown. It's an excuse for their own failure.

A poor immigrant can become wealthy through hard work but what are the odds? One in how many thousands? And the ones that made it - are we sure they did it throught just hard work? I have an immigrant brother in law that went from crummy jobs to being a multimillionaire in 30 years. He would also sell his own mother into slavery if it improved his bottom line. Still owes me $1500 dollars from when he was poor, but he won't pay me out of principle. This is not atypical of those of wealthy means, including those that inherited wealth

 

[SwimExpert]

A poor immigrant can become wealthy through hard work but what are the odds? One in how many thousands? And the ones that made it - are we sure they did it throught just hard work?

More often than not, the reason immigrants get ahead in this country is because the government bends over backwards for them with all kinds of grants and other crap that our own citizens don't get.

 

[ShawnChris13]

HELLO...Reaganism is the problem- only the rich have any money to spend- and they AREN'T- see sig para 3...



Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...Memorize the facts, hater dupes:



1. WORKERS 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% – Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 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% – Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% 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% – Reagan1982 = 11.2% – Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)



4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 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 Probabilityy 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.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Franco when you use good argentd I'm always astounded. Bravo sir!

 

[Billy000]

I've read alot of fair points by both sides in this thread. Sadly there is just as much clear envy and nonsense, mostly by the left.

One poster in particular nailed it imo. If you want the uber wealthy to have less influence then you have to rein in the politicians. And the ONLY way that will ever happen is with term limits & publicly funded elections. That last part was mine.

The rich only hold as much power as Pelosi, Paul or any of the other ppoliticians SELL them.

As for all the ludicrous excuses for why people get d's or f's in life....... well, get bent. I ain't buying the bullshit your selling. If I can get out of prision and own a successful business within a few years there is no god damn excuse for anyone else other than mental or physical handicaps. The rest of you just aren't applying yourself hard enough, PERIOD.

You don't actually think my posts were envious do you?

 

[Publius1787]

HELLO...Reaganism is the problem- only the rich have any money to spend- and they AREN'T- see sig para 3...



Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...Memorize the facts, hater dupes:



1. WORKERS 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% – Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 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% – Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% 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% – Reagan1982 = 11.2% – Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)



4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 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 Probabilityy 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.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Franco when you use good argentd I'm always astounded. Bravo sir!

..

 

[Publius1787]

HELLO...Reaganism is the problem- only the rich have any money to spend- and they AREN'T- see sig para 3...

Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...Memorize the facts, hater dupes:

1. WORKERS 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% – Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 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% – Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% 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% – Reagan1982 = 11.2% – Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 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 Probabilityy 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.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Awweeee, you want other peoples money? Why didn't you just say so?

 

[Seawytch]

there is just as much clear envy

It is not envy to know that this is unsustainable...

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is complete bullshit. You didn't even provide a link. The real proof is in my signature

Vox will not provide a link.

Priceless irony, Fakey you NEVER provide anything but your worthless opinions.

Nah, that's you, my little buddy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

because you did it on the computer, not on the phone

it is THE SAME EXACT TABLE - in all the articles.

The table disproves the hysteria of big changes in the distribution of wealth.

It has been grossly the same for 90 years.

the best balance was under Nixon and shortly after him - and the income of the American family under Nixon was growing at the same speed as the public debt ( I can't find that graph, I tried) - and starting from the Carter era the debt skyrockets and the family income grows very slowly.

THIS is the cause of decreasing feeling of well-being - because the skyrocketing debt is causing inflation.

Some prices goods and services have increased some have decreased considerably.
The essentials have increased, some due to the elevation in global energy demand some due to Directors and CEOs needing to maintain their post DOT COM lifestyles.

This has NOTHING to do with shrinking opportunity.

Shrinking opportunity has EVERYTHING to do with the failed policies of the last 5 years.

You want opportunity with an unemployment of over 7% and GDP growth less than 2%?


you have to be kidding

If you want an opportunity - you need GDP growth at least 4% and unemployment not more than 5% - then one will have opportunity.

But keep spending like drunken sailor and over-regulate and overtax the very segment which is actually producing and creating - and you will have even more misery in the next 3 years.

Oh, and impose death sentences a.k.a. obamacare and dodd-frank on citizens and small businesses - the exact recipe for disaster.

and then whine about CEOs and minimum wage laws - to stop growth and job creation even more.

Stop whining. You have not answer the point of "A review of the criteria demonstrates this is an inaccurate low-value rating. It is probably 25 to 30% under represented."

 

[dannyboys]

If the wealthy make rules to benefit themselves only and not allow anyone else to become wealthy, then no one would become wealthy. We know that's not true. For some reason immigrants can come here, not even knowing the language, and become very wealthy.

The rich won't let me, is the mark of someone without ambition, motivation or even interest in bettering their own lives. It's like the losing football team claiming that their inability to score is the fault of the opposing team not letting them get a touchdown. It's an excuse for their own failure.

Don't transfer your misconceptions to the rest of us. Becoming moderately wealthy through everyday commerce is of course possible but to enter the ranks of the truly elite, the power brokers, the politician buyers, is beyond even your wildest flights of fancy. It's the same old, old money that has entrenched its own selfish interests into our political structure, trumping our interests, that concern us, not the car dealer or the store owner that has actually built something honestly.

Yaaaaawn.
I see it's again time for some more 'home truths'.
99% of the 'wealthy' in the US are working literally 24/7. Their entire lives are consumed with maintaining and growing wealth. For most of them 'it's not about the money'. Poor/middle class people can't get that through their noggins b/c for them 'it's always about the money'.....they wish they had/need.
Truly wealthy people don't bother with 'spending money' to buy 'bling'.
Even when they can be persuaded to 'get away' they always take their work with them.

The average middle class/poor person couldn't tolerate the emotional stress. Believe it or not many many 'wealthy' people who 'lucked out' and wake up one morning with the welfare of a thousand employees balanced on one bad business decision end up with 'personal problems'.
The LIB media always likes to show wack-jobs like Paris Hinton or the Kardasians acting like the immoral pigs they are. They aren't the 'wealthy' They are the spawn of the wealthy.
There are people who have inherited wealth who can't handle the responsibility and make fools of themselves. Those are the ones we see on LIB cable TV.
BUT. You will rarely see anyone who 'got wealthy' by busting their ass suddenly turn around and start blowing their wealth. The only time that happens is when they are going through a crisis like a mental breakdown.
So the next time you dismiss 'the wealthy' as all a bunch of self centered 'haters' of the poor/middle class ask yourself if you would be willing to trade places......so you could ate lobster anything you wish. If you just said yes you are an idiot so it's no wonder you'll always be scratching to pay the rent.
I meet someone to inherited a very large amount of money.....and responsibility. He soon took other peoples advice and opted out of the responsibility part leaving him with millions to do whatever he wanted. After he had done the predictable....ie blown a couple of million on 'bling'...including some human bling we had a coffee at a local cafe.
When I asked him how he was enjoying driving the new Ferrari. He sadly replied: "Is that all there is to being wealthy. Just buying shit?"
So in closing. The next time you see a 'wealthy person'. Not the type the LIB media shows sitting on the back deck of a yacht fondling the bikinis but sitting behind a desk deciding whether he can keep the doors open where your relative works for another year consider the bigger picture and stop swallowing the 'load' MSNBC is feeding their 'low-information' viewers.

 

[Papawx3]

The economy is not a zero-sum game. Just because I make a decent amount of money by working my ass off it doesn't mean that someone else has to have less. Anyone else can do the same as I have, and that is reading and practicing in my industry so that I can do the best job possible for my customers. For that, I earn as much in a few hours as many other people do in an entire week.
To think that I should give up some of my income to give to some lazy asshole who doesn't know enough to read his own name on a piece of paper and doesn't care enough to get himself out of bed and try to make a living is sheer idiocy.

 

[zeke]

The economy is not a zero-sum game. Just because I make a decent amount of money by working my ass off it doesn't mean that someone else has to have less. Anyone else can do the same as I have, and that is reading and practicing in my industry so that I can do the best job possible for my customers. For that, I earn as much in a few hours as many other people do in an entire week.
To think that I should give up some of my income to give to some lazy asshole who doesn't know enough to read his own name on a piece of paper and doesn't care enough to get himself out of bed and try to make a living is sheer idiocy.

There is a big difference between making a "decent" amount of money and a plutocrat..

You might make 100k a year. Sounds like, and is, good money.

It is chump change to an ultra rich plutocrat.

When you have 500 million in the bank and make at least 25 million a year, then consider yourself plutocrat material. If that's where you want to go.

But I fucking guarantee you that you will never, ever if you live to be 100 make 25 million dollars a year. No matter what you do.

So quit worrying about those ultra rich people. They sure ain't worried about you.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody s saying take money from the wealthy and give it to me. That is just rightwing fear mongering

But there is a massive inequity in wealth in this country. Why do we continue policies that encourage more wealth to be accumulated at the highest levels while the average worker struggles

That is not class envy, that is common sense

 

[editec]

Never discuss anything serious with a person who you know has set out NOT to understand the issue at hand.

WEALTH maldistribution is something that no right winger will ever acknowledge because if they do they'll lose the support of the Masters.

Well to be fair, most of these folks really are NOT quite smart enough to realize that every dollar is in a constant tug of war competition with every other dollar to own the wealth of the world.

 

[dannyboys]

Nobody s saying take money from the wealthy and give it to me. That is just rightwing fear mongering

But there is a massive inequity in wealth in this country. Why do we continue policies that encourage more wealth to be accumulated at the highest levels while the average worker struggles

That is not class envy, that is common sense

The human animal didn't get where he is today without having the need to compete and win against other humans. It's in our genetic code.
That's why those who are driven to succeed, for whatever reason/s will always and forever look down on those less able, for whatever reason/s to compete and win.
All this LIB bullshit about 'everyone deserves the same size trophy' is simply a way of saying: "Yes we were not all created equal in the real world but lets pretend we were and in order to keep the farce going we'll need to level out the playing field and so we'll need to have more and more money from the 'Makers" to give to the 'Takers."
It's all a load of Socialist BS and that's the reason the theory only works on paper never in reality.
Like M. Thatcher said: "Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money".