Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
ceos didnt become super heroes
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?
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. Labors 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
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.
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. Labors 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!
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. Labors 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
there is just as much clear envy
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.
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.
Yaaaaawn.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.
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.
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.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