Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

[AmericanFirst]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

Yes he is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

Yes he is.

I guess he just hates labels. I cant imagine why? Whats so bad about associating yourself with ideas that slowly starved 120 million human beings to death??

 

[Dad2three]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

"$60,000 per year"

They're driving Cadi's too right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

Yes he is.

I guess he just hates labels. I cant imagine why? Whats so bad about associating yourself with ideas that slowly starved 120 million human beings to death??

Agree, why don't you totalitarians accept it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

"$60,000 per year"

They're driving Cadi's too right? lol

dear I gave you the list that far exceeds your $2 a day lib commie lie. Do you understand commrade!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Agree, why don't you totalitarians accept it?

the idiot liberal forgot to say what "it" is and who the totalitarians are!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

Yes he is.

I guess he just hates labels. I cant imagine why? Whats so bad about associating yourself with ideas that slowly starved 120 million human beings to death??

Agree, why don't you totalitarians accept it?

That you are a stinking commie puke who is proud of a system that starves people? Idiot!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Agree, why don't you totalitarians accept it?

the idiot liberal forgot to say what "it" is and who the totalitarians are!!

Because he is an idiot.

 

[gipper]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

"$60,000 per year"

They're driving Cadi's too right? lol

The welfare/warfare state you so love, can't sustain itself when more and more Americans are not contributing to it, but taking from it. So...the end is near.

Another month, another attempt by the BLS to mask the collapse in the US labor force with a goalseeked seasonally-adjusted surge in waiter, bartender and other low-paying jobs. Case in point: after a modest rebound by 0.1% in November, the labor participation rate just slid once more, dropping to 62.7%, or the lowest print since December 1977. This happened because the number of Americans not in the labor forced soared by 451,000 in December, far outpacing the 111,000 jobs added according to the Household Survey, and is the primary reason why the number of uenmployed Americans dropped by 383,000.





And another chart that will not be mentioned anywhere: the Civilian Employment to Population Ratio: at 59.2%, it is now unchanged for 4 months in a row.

 

[Dad2three]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

"$60,000 per year"

They're driving Cadi's too right? lol

The welfare/warfare state you so love, can't sustain itself when more and more Americans are not contributing to it, but taking from it. So...the end is near.

Another month, another attempt by the BLS to mask the collapse in the US labor force with a goalseeked seasonally-adjusted surge in waiter, bartender and other low-paying jobs. Case in point: after a modest rebound by 0.1% in November, the labor participation rate just slid once more, dropping to 62.7%, or the lowest print since December 1977. This happened because the number of Americans not in the labor forced soared by 451,000 in December, far outpacing the 111,000 jobs added according to the Household Survey, and is the primary reason why the number of uenmployed Americans dropped by 383,000.





And another chart that will not be mentioned anywhere: the Civilian Employment to Population Ratio: at 59.2%, it is now unchanged for 4 months in a row.

FIRST, THE US BY FAR IS A RICH NATION, THOUGH WE HAVE TO MUCH OF THE PIE IN THE WRONG HANDS, WE AREN'T GOING TO GO BK OR ANYTHING. PERHAPS If THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' PAID A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOMES LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 IN TAXES, INSTEAD OF THE CONSERVATIVES/GOP BLOWING THEM FOR EVERYTHING THEY ARE WORTH???


80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated




STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes


LPR?

OH THE NEW MEME SINCE OBAMA HAS SEEN 11+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER HIM SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM FEB 2010



Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled “Dispelling an Urban Legend,” Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

WHAT OTHER MEME YOU WANT DEMOLISHED BUBBA?

SINCE YOU LIKE PICS:

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.


The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.


Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Wyatt earp]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

"$60,000 per year"

They're driving Cadi's too right? lol

The welfare/warfare state you so love, can't sustain itself when more and more Americans are not contributing to it, but taking from it. So...the end is near.

Another month, another attempt by the BLS to mask the collapse in the US labor force with a goalseeked seasonally-adjusted surge in waiter, bartender and other low-paying jobs. Case in point: after a modest rebound by 0.1% in November, the labor participation rate just slid once more, dropping to 62.7%, or the lowest print since December 1977. This happened because the number of Americans not in the labor forced soared by 451,000 in December, far outpacing the 111,000 jobs added according to the Household Survey, and is the primary reason why the number of uenmployed Americans dropped by 383,000.





And another chart that will not be mentioned anywhere: the Civilian Employment to Population Ratio: at 59.2%, it is now unchanged for 4 months in a row.

 

[gipper]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

"$60,000 per year"

They're driving Cadi's too right? lol

The welfare/warfare state you so love, can't sustain itself when more and more Americans are not contributing to it, but taking from it. So...the end is near.

Another month, another attempt by the BLS to mask the collapse in the US labor force with a goalseeked seasonally-adjusted surge in waiter, bartender and other low-paying jobs. Case in point: after a modest rebound by 0.1% in November, the labor participation rate just slid once more, dropping to 62.7%, or the lowest print since December 1977. This happened because the number of Americans not in the labor forced soared by 451,000 in December, far outpacing the 111,000 jobs added according to the Household Survey, and is the primary reason why the number of uenmployed Americans dropped by 383,000.





And another chart that will not be mentioned anywhere: the Civilian Employment to Population Ratio: at 59.2%, it is now unchanged for 4 months in a row.

FIRST, THE US BY FAR IS A RICH NATION, THOUGH WE HAVE TO MUCH OF THE PIE IN THE WRONG HANDS, WE AREN'T GOING TO GO BK OR ANYTHING. PERHAPS If THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' PAID A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOMES LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 IN TAXES, INSTEAD OF THE CONSERVATIVES/GOP BLOWING THEM FOR EVERYTHING THEY ARE WORTH???


80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated




STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes


LPR?

OH THE NEW MEME SINCE OBAMA HAS SEEN 11+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER HIM SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM FEB 2010



Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled “Dispelling an Urban Legend,” Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

WHAT OTHER MEME YOU WANT DEMOLISHED BUBBA?

SINCE YOU LIKE PICS:

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.


The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.


Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

So not only are conservatives SOLELY responsible for the national debt and the endless deficit spending, they are also responsible for income inequality. Is there anything else they are responsible for?

And conversely, Ds and progs are not responsible for any of this...they are blameless. Yet, Ds and progs have controlled our central government for decades.

How can this be?

 

[Dad2three]

A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—.

too stupid as always!!! your lib commie numbers don't include welfare, food stamps, housing, education, roads, national defense, healthcare, etc etc which come to about $60,000 per year.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

for 76th time are you a communist dumbto3??

"$60,000 per year"

They're driving Cadi's too right? lol

The welfare/warfare state you so love, can't sustain itself when more and more Americans are not contributing to it, but taking from it. So...the end is near.

Another month, another attempt by the BLS to mask the collapse in the US labor force with a goalseeked seasonally-adjusted surge in waiter, bartender and other low-paying jobs. Case in point: after a modest rebound by 0.1% in November, the labor participation rate just slid once more, dropping to 62.7%, or the lowest print since December 1977. This happened because the number of Americans not in the labor forced soared by 451,000 in December, far outpacing the 111,000 jobs added according to the Household Survey, and is the primary reason why the number of uenmployed Americans dropped by 383,000.





And another chart that will not be mentioned anywhere: the Civilian Employment to Population Ratio: at 59.2%, it is now unchanged for 4 months in a row.

FIRST, THE US BY FAR IS A RICH NATION, THOUGH WE HAVE TO MUCH OF THE PIE IN THE WRONG HANDS, WE AREN'T GOING TO GO BK OR ANYTHING. PERHAPS If THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' PAID A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOMES LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 IN TAXES, INSTEAD OF THE CONSERVATIVES/GOP BLOWING THEM FOR EVERYTHING THEY ARE WORTH???


80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated




STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes


LPR?

OH THE NEW MEME SINCE OBAMA HAS SEEN 11+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER HIM SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM FEB 2010



Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled “Dispelling an Urban Legend,” Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

WHAT OTHER MEME YOU WANT DEMOLISHED BUBBA?

SINCE YOU LIKE PICS:

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.


The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.


Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

So not only are conservatives SOLELY responsible for the national debt and the endless deficit spending, they are also responsible for income inequality. Is there anything else they are responsible for?

And conversely, Ds and progs are not responsible for any of this...they are blameless. Yet, Ds and progs have controlled our central government for decades.

How can this be?

No, you can't refute that 90%+ of current debt can be traced back to only 3 guys, Ronnie, Bush and Bush and thanks to THEIR policies, including gutting taxes for the rich as they shifted the tax burden to the middle class (or just continued with the credit card), OR that economist can show a clear correlation of incomes inequality and 'supply side' policy.


2010:


Disappearing middle class: During the last presidential debate season, they argued that a family income of $250K was solidly middle-class. Well, Census data shows less than 15% of families make over $100K, and only 1.5% of families make over $250K. The income gap between the rich and poor has increased at a staggering pace, while many more middle-class folks join the ranks of the poor every day. Cavernous income gaps may be what Third-World nations are best known for.


Dems controlled Gov't for decades? Hmm SO IS IT PREZ POLICY OR CONGRESS WO HAS THE MOST CREDIT/BLAME?





Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic

 

[gipper]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

 

[Dad2three]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

 

[gipper]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

 

[Redfish]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

 

[Dad2three]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

"The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing"

PLEASE give me some details, rather than talking points?



"You seem to think conservatives"




ARE THE PROBLEM, BE THEY R OR D

 

[Redfish]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

"The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing"

PLEASE give me some details, rather than talking points?



"You seem to think conservatives"




ARE THE PROBLEM, BE THEY R OR D

nope, liberals are the problem no matter what letter they have behind their name.

 

[gipper]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

"The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing"

PLEASE give me some details, rather than talking points?



"You seem to think conservatives"




ARE THE PROBLEM, BE THEY R OR D

Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years and all of Bush I. Some of BJs eight years and some of W's and BO's years. So how is it they are not responsible for the debt and income inequality?

One would think if the Ds are so wonderful and caring, when they had the WH and Congress they should have fixed all our problems. No?