Income Inequality: So What?

[PoliticalChic]

In an entire constellation of stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest statements.....

...this one may be the topper:


"Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'"
Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'




The difficulty is in deciding in which category the statement belong.....
"stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest statements."

Obama said increasing income inequality is more pronounced in the United States than other countries. He said Americans should be offended that a child born into poverty has such a hard time escaping it. "It should compel us to action. We're a better country than this," the president said.

Funny you should post that, as I was just considering constructing an OP that would discuss the fallacy therein.....

....as in the past, I'd like to use your post .....

Am I correct that this would pose no problem?




BTW, you might want to peruse the OP in this thread.....income inequality is a 'so what?'

Meaningless in any way except as an influence for the low information voter.

 

[Rshermr]

In an entire constellation of stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest statements.....

...this one may be the topper:


"Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'"
Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'




The difficulty is in deciding in which category the statement belong.....
"stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest statements."

Obama said increasing income inequality is more pronounced in the United States than other countries. He said Americans should be offended that a child born into poverty has such a hard time escaping it. "It should compel us to action. We're a better country than this," the president said.

Funny you should post that, as I was just considering constructing an OP that would discuss the fallacy therein.....

....as in the past, I'd like to use your post .....

Am I correct that this would pose no problem?




BTW, you might want to peruse the OP in this thread.....income inequality is a 'so what?'

Meaningless in any way except as an influence for the low information voter.

The low information voter being you, of course. Next.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama said increasing income inequality is more pronounced in the United States than other countries. He said Americans should be offended that a child born into poverty has such a hard time escaping it. "It should compel us to action. We're a better country than this," the president said.

Funny you should post that, as I was just considering constructing an OP that would discuss the fallacy therein.....

....as in the past, I'd like to use your post .....

Am I correct that this would pose no problem?




BTW, you might want to peruse the OP in this thread.....income inequality is a 'so what?'

Meaningless in any way except as an influence for the low information voter.

The low information voter being you, of course. Next.

What are you on vacation.....out of the dung hill today?

 

[srlip]

so some people are doing better than others, at a higher rate, so what? anyone with a brain can still retire in 4 years, starting with basically nothing. You just have to know a few things, nothing special in the way of skills, startup money, knowledge, influence, etc.

 

[Rshermr]

Funny you should post that, as I was just considering constructing an OP that would discuss the fallacy therein.....

....as in the past, I'd like to use your post .....

Am I correct that this would pose no problem?




BTW, you might want to peruse the OP in this thread.....income inequality is a 'so what?'

Meaningless in any way except as an influence for the low information voter.

The low information voter being you, of course. Next.

What are you on vacation.....out of the dung hill today?

Back to the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit. Infantile posts comparing people to invertibre just do not come up to your ability to cut and paste right wing dogma. And you know how much I value your opinion, me poor ignorant con.
Besides, do they pay you for infantile posts also???

 

[PoliticalChic]

The low information voter being you, of course. Next.

What are you on vacation.....out of the dung hill today?

Back to the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit. Infantile posts comparing people to invertibre just do not come up to your ability to cut and paste right wing dogma. And you know how much I value your opinion, me poor ignorant con.
Besides, do they pay you for infantile posts also???

I'm curious, you worm.....

...what is life like in a bait jar?

 

[EconomicNudity]

I think I'll go kill myself.

Get a grip man! Don't get mad (or depressed), ORGANIZE!



I would not dismiss the study of income inequality, its causes and future trends, in such works as Piketty's "Capital" as envy. Perhaps you could hold the thought until you can get a copy (mine like everybody else's is on back order) and have an opportunity to read it. Then we could have a meaningful discussion. In the interim I note there is a good body of economic literature to the effect that high levels of income inequality have a negative impact on economic growth and contribute to economic, political, and social instability.

But while "income inequality, per se is not a problem, poverty is something to be fought with great vigor. The question is, do we fight poverty by redistributing money from productive taxpayers to the unproductive Poor? Or do we develop laws and policies that encourage entrepreneurship, production, generation of wealth, and secondarily, JOBS?

Do you really think the distribution of income is independent of the level of poverty? I'm all for pro-growth policies. But when high inequality is the cause of low growth, I am at a loss to understand your post. If maldistribution increases poverty, will not decreasing maldistribution lower it?

There is, indeed, a large body of work out their by distinguished authors on the problems that result to an economy from bad distribution of income. It is simply that conservatives do not want to believe it. Or, for that matter, consider it. It is highly unlikely, in my humble but correct opinion, that we will ever see our economy fully recover without changes to this problem.

I am interested in the large bodies of work you reference - would you mind sharing a few? What would you consider an acceptable distribution of income so that we can try to reach that point?

I think there a plenty of distinguished economists on both sides of the discussion so could you elaborate...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Get a grip man! Don't get mad (or depressed), ORGANIZE!



I would not dismiss the study of income inequality, its causes and future trends, in such works as Piketty's "Capital" as envy. Perhaps you could hold the thought until you can get a copy (mine like everybody else's is on back order) and have an opportunity to read it. Then we could have a meaningful discussion. In the interim I note there is a good body of economic literature to the effect that high levels of income inequality have a negative impact on economic growth and contribute to economic, political, and social instability.



Do you really think the distribution of income is independent of the level of poverty? I'm all for pro-growth policies. But when high inequality is the cause of low growth, I am at a loss to understand your post. If maldistribution increases poverty, will not decreasing maldistribution lower it?

There is, indeed, a large body of work out their by distinguished authors on the problems that result to an economy from bad distribution of income. It is simply that conservatives do not want to believe it. Or, for that matter, consider it. It is highly unlikely, in my humble but correct opinion, that we will ever see our economy fully recover without changes to this problem.

I am interested in the large bodies of work you reference - would you mind sharing a few? What would you consider an acceptable distribution of income so that we can try to reach that point?

I think there a plenty of distinguished economists on both sides of the discussion so could you elaborate...

The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities.

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

 

[sealybobo]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
Income Equality: A Search for Consequences





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
Income Equality: A Search for Consequences





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

Dunces like you have some socialist fallacy embedded, that government has some role in apportioning income.

Couldn't be less American.


See if this helps:


What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“…. by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others. Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking. Crap. I thought we had it this time. Fairness! And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further. Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people will still have more than others. And they’ll keep it.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not – cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard. Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills. That’s what makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth? | John Hawkins' Right Wing News



Wise up, you dope.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
Income Equality: A Search for Consequences





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

Know what the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is??

Government taxation.

Hussein Obama's string of failures proved that.

But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” The Education of President Obama

 

[sealybobo]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
Income Equality: A Search for Consequences





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

Know what the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is??

Government taxation.

Hussein Obama's string of failures proved that.

But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” The Education of President Obama

Companies were doing great last year. Rich people were doing great last year. What was the problem? The only people doing bad were losers like you. Are you doing better today?

You'll see. If Trump gives you $100 a year it will cost you $1000 a year down the road. But you're too dumb to see it. The rich however will do great.

Did you know your tax break eventually fades out? But the rich tax break is permanent. Don't you find that odd? Of course you do not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
Income Equality: A Search for Consequences





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

Dunces like you have some socialist fallacy embedded, that government has some role in apportioning income.

Couldn't be less American.


See if this helps:


What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“…. by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others. Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking. Crap. I thought we had it this time. Fairness! And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further. Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people will still have more than others. And they’ll keep it.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not – cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard. Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills. That’s what makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth? | John Hawkins' Right Wing News



Wise up, you dope.

You're so brainwashed and stupid even for a girl.

Let's admit the truth: While you have no way to dispute what I've posted, and history proves.....

....you lack the honesty to admit same.


Soooooo....you are both ignorant, and dishonest.....a perfect Liberal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
Income Equality: A Search for Consequences





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

Know what the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is??

Government taxation.

Hussein Obama's string of failures proved that.

But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” The Education of President Obama

Companies were doing great last year. Rich people were doing great last year. What was the problem? The only people doing bad were losers like you. Are you doing better today?

You'll see. If Trump gives you $100 a year it will cost you $1000 a year down the road. But you're too dumb to see it. The rich however will do great.

Did you know your tax break eventually fades out? But the rich tax break is permanent. Don't you find that odd? Of course you do not.

"Companies were doing great last year."

Stop lying.

The economy has been far from 'great' under Hussein Obama's stewardship.

Let's prove it together.

Let's give you a dozen chances to prove you aren't a lying low-life Liberal:

1... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


2. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


3. . "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


4. . In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls “an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton."Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart


5. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

6. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.”
The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



7. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any


8. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/red-tape-rising-five-years-of-regulatory-expansion


9. . "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0


10. . "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of the original $2 billion appropriatedin 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.


...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses


11. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth."Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



12. ".... calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president."
How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?




Waiting....you dunce.

 

[sealybobo]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
Income Equality: A Search for Consequences





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

Know what the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is??

Government taxation.

Hussein Obama's string of failures proved that.

But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” The Education of President Obama

Companies were doing great last year. Rich people were doing great last year. What was the problem? The only people doing bad were losers like you. Are you doing better today?

You'll see. If Trump gives you $100 a year it will cost you $1000 a year down the road. But you're too dumb to see it. The rich however will do great.

Did you know your tax break eventually fades out? But the rich tax break is permanent. Don't you find that odd? Of course you do not.

"Companies were doing great last year."

Stop lying.

The economy has been far from 'great' under Hussein Obama's stewardship.

Let's prove it together.

Let's give you a dozen chances to prove you aren't a lying low-life Liberal:

1... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


2. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


3. . "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


4. . In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls “an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton."Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart


5. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

6. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.”
The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



7. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any


8. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion


9. . "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0


10. . "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of the original $2 billion appropriatedin 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.


...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses


11. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth."Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



12. ".... calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president."
How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?




Waiting....you dunce.

So the economy wasn't good last year but this year it's good? What a fucking joke you are. I never take you seriously. LOL.

We all know you will defend the GOP no matter what. One might actually think you are rich and benefitting from the shit they do but we all know that's not the case. You're just a dingbat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
Income Equality: A Search for Consequences





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

Know what the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is??

Government taxation.

Hussein Obama's string of failures proved that.

But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” The Education of President Obama

Companies were doing great last year. Rich people were doing great last year. What was the problem? The only people doing bad were losers like you. Are you doing better today?

You'll see. If Trump gives you $100 a year it will cost you $1000 a year down the road. But you're too dumb to see it. The rich however will do great.

Did you know your tax break eventually fades out? But the rich tax break is permanent. Don't you find that odd? Of course you do not.

"Companies were doing great last year."

Stop lying.

The economy has been far from 'great' under Hussein Obama's stewardship.

Let's prove it together.

Let's give you a dozen chances to prove you aren't a lying low-life Liberal:

1... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


2. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


3. . "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


4. . In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls “an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton."Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart


5. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

6. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.”
The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



7. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any


8. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion


9. . "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0


10. . "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of the original $2 billion appropriatedin 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.


...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses


11. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth."Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



12. ".... calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president."
How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?




Waiting....you dunce.

So the economy wasn't good last year but this year it's good? What a fucking joke you are. I never take you seriously. LOL.

We all know you will defend the GOP no matter what. One might actually think you are rich and benefitting from the shit they do but we all know that's not the case. You're just a dingbat.

The vulgarity gives away your angst.

With good reason.....I just proved
a. what an abject failure Hussein was
b. how socialism will always fail
c. what a lying low-life you are.


What more is there to say?

 

[sealybobo]

But last year you tried to blame Obama for the rising gap between the rich and rest of us. And it does matter if the rich get richer and we don't keep up with inflation.

Lets look at Trump's new tax cut bill.

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

So Republicans shouldn't be surprised the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. Don't blame Obama when it's policies like this that are creating this gap.

So here the middle class are basically staying the same but the rich just got a lot richer. That's Trump breaking a campaign promise but you don't care right?

Know what the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is??

Government taxation.

Hussein Obama's string of failures proved that.

But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” The Education of President Obama

Companies were doing great last year. Rich people were doing great last year. What was the problem? The only people doing bad were losers like you. Are you doing better today?

You'll see. If Trump gives you $100 a year it will cost you $1000 a year down the road. But you're too dumb to see it. The rich however will do great.

Did you know your tax break eventually fades out? But the rich tax break is permanent. Don't you find that odd? Of course you do not.

"Companies were doing great last year."

Stop lying.

The economy has been far from 'great' under Hussein Obama's stewardship.

Let's prove it together.

Let's give you a dozen chances to prove you aren't a lying low-life Liberal:

1... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


2. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


3. . "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


4. . In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls “an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton."Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart


5. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

6. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.”
The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



7. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any


8. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion


9. . "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0


10. . "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of the original $2 billion appropriatedin 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.


...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses


11. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth."Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



12. ".... calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president."
How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?




Waiting....you dunce.

So the economy wasn't good last year but this year it's good? What a fucking joke you are. I never take you seriously. LOL.

We all know you will defend the GOP no matter what. One might actually think you are rich and benefitting from the shit they do but we all know that's not the case. You're just a dingbat.

The vulgarity gives away your angst.

With good reason.....I just proved
a. what an abject failure Hussein was
b. how socialism will always fail
c. what a lying low-life you are.


What more is there to say?

You get dumber with age?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Know what the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is??

Government taxation.

Hussein Obama's string of failures proved that.

But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” The Education of President Obama

Companies were doing great last year. Rich people were doing great last year. What was the problem? The only people doing bad were losers like you. Are you doing better today?

You'll see. If Trump gives you $100 a year it will cost you $1000 a year down the road. But you're too dumb to see it. The rich however will do great.

Did you know your tax break eventually fades out? But the rich tax break is permanent. Don't you find that odd? Of course you do not.

"Companies were doing great last year."

Stop lying.

The economy has been far from 'great' under Hussein Obama's stewardship.

Let's prove it together.

Let's give you a dozen chances to prove you aren't a lying low-life Liberal:

1... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


2. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


3. . "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


4. . In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls “an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton."Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart


5. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

6. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.”
The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



7. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any


8. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion


9. . "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0


10. . "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of the original $2 billion appropriatedin 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.


...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses


11. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth."Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



12. ".... calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president."
How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?




Waiting....you dunce.

So the economy wasn't good last year but this year it's good? What a fucking joke you are. I never take you seriously. LOL.

We all know you will defend the GOP no matter what. One might actually think you are rich and benefitting from the shit they do but we all know that's not the case. You're just a dingbat.

The vulgarity gives away your angst.

With good reason.....I just proved
a. what an abject failure Hussein was
b. how socialism will always fail
c. what a lying low-life you are.


What more is there to say?

You get dumber with age?

Of course your post bears no relationship to the post I authored.....which leaves only one conclusion: you feel the sting of my intellectual whip....and have no way to respond.


Accept the pain that your ignorance and dishonesty have awarded you.

Think of me as Karma.

 

[sealybobo]

Companies were doing great last year. Rich people were doing great last year. What was the problem? The only people doing bad were losers like you. Are you doing better today?

You'll see. If Trump gives you $100 a year it will cost you $1000 a year down the road. But you're too dumb to see it. The rich however will do great.

Did you know your tax break eventually fades out? But the rich tax break is permanent. Don't you find that odd? Of course you do not.

"Companies were doing great last year."

Stop lying.

The economy has been far from 'great' under Hussein Obama's stewardship.

Let's prove it together.

Let's give you a dozen chances to prove you aren't a lying low-life Liberal:

1... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


2. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


3. . "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


4. . In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls “an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton."Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart


5. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

6. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.”
The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



7. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any


8. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion


9. . "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0


10. . "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of the original $2 billion appropriatedin 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.


...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses


11. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth."Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



12. ".... calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president."
How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?




Waiting....you dunce.

So the economy wasn't good last year but this year it's good? What a fucking joke you are. I never take you seriously. LOL.

We all know you will defend the GOP no matter what. One might actually think you are rich and benefitting from the shit they do but we all know that's not the case. You're just a dingbat.

The vulgarity gives away your angst.

With good reason.....I just proved
a. what an abject failure Hussein was
b. how socialism will always fail
c. what a lying low-life you are.


What more is there to say?

You get dumber with age?

Of course your post bears no relationship to the post I authored.....which leaves only one conclusion: you feel the sting of my intellectual whip....and have no way to respond.


Accept the pain that your ignorance and dishonesty have awarded you.

Think of me as Karma.

Talking to you is an exercise in futility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Companies were doing great last year."

Stop lying.

The economy has been far from 'great' under Hussein Obama's stewardship.

Let's prove it together.

Let's give you a dozen chances to prove you aren't a lying low-life Liberal:

1... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


2. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


3. . "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


4. . In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls “an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton."Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart


5. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

6. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.”
The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



7. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any


8. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion


9. . "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0


10. . "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of the original $2 billion appropriatedin 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.


...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses


11. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth."Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



12. ".... calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president."
How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?




Waiting....you dunce.

So the economy wasn't good last year but this year it's good? What a fucking joke you are. I never take you seriously. LOL.

We all know you will defend the GOP no matter what. One might actually think you are rich and benefitting from the shit they do but we all know that's not the case. You're just a dingbat.

The vulgarity gives away your angst.

With good reason.....I just proved
a. what an abject failure Hussein was
b. how socialism will always fail
c. what a lying low-life you are.


What more is there to say?

You get dumber with age?

Of course your post bears no relationship to the post I authored.....which leaves only one conclusion: you feel the sting of my intellectual whip....and have no way to respond.


Accept the pain that your ignorance and dishonesty have awarded you.

Think of me as Karma.

Talking to you is an exercise in futility.

Why are you crawling back????

You have no ability to respond, nor refute what I've posted.


Consider yourself dissed and dismissed.