Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[PredFan]

You wont get a straight answer from him. As long as the wealthy get screwed he's fine. That's the bottom line here.

Those same "job creators" are sitting on their money and making more via capital gains instead of creating jobs.

Where is the "risk" in sitting on a big pile of cash?

Is everyone not free to do as they wish with what they own?? Or is it just the 'rich' that have to do the bidding of others?? Are they not allowed to invest on the risks they want? Wait for the opportunity they want? Start a business or hire when they want?

Lefties think that all jobs and all money belongs to the government and that we are being leant those jobs and that money by the good graces of the government.

 

[Navy1960]

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[3] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.[3] The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile
Wealth in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government,to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people."-- John F. Kennedy

Now while each of us have our own opinion on the matter, on a personal level, I tend to think that Govt. has a rightful place to see to it that those who cannot see for themselves, its Seniors, its disabled, and those who sacrificed for it (Military, etc) are taken care of. Part of being a citizen in this nation is to not only share in its bounty but to also share in the responsibility of it. While not speaking for others, I have always felt things such as taxes were a responsibilty for such things. The roads we drive on, the aircraft we flew in the Navy, and helping the soldier or sailor who gave so much for his or her nation. This seperation of "Them" and " Us" is a very bad thing for our nation because WE are all in this together and as soon as people begin to realize that then perhaps things might begin turn around a little. I might remind some here too, that in the past 10 years American companies have let go of 2.9 Million Americans and hired 2.4 Million people overseas, and in light of such things as this, wouldn't it be prudent as Americans to remind these companies that its not a bad thing from time to time to put one's nation above one's dollar.

You should be very careful with the data...and how it is ascertained.
It is misleading.

1. If you don’t see it, is it still there?? The stock market boom of the ‘90’s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple:
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf

Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data. But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution. Remember, before the changes in the tax code, late ‘80’s, investment income of our middle-income earners was all counted on tax returns. Thus, once it was no longer counted, it appeared that the income of the middle was sharply decreased, while that of the rich appeared to receive the major portion of said distributution!

a. Capital gains tax rate cuts in ’97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.


2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


BTW...the increases in wealth of every quartile increased at least as fast as the top.

While aggregate household net
wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf

While I don't dispute data, that indicates consumption as well as taking into account "various" bubbles, it does appear at least from every source , I can read, including almost all Govt. sources, that the gap between the rich and poor seems to be growing. When I have the chance I will locate it, but I also seem to recall a statistic somewhere from the Census, that a survey was taken of many of those in the top 1% and it seemed to indicated a vast majority of that wealth is not earned through "work" per se, bur rather investments, etc. However, let me say this, I not only admire many of those who have gotten to the top 1% but indeed think it's not a good thing to seperate them away from everyone else. Having said that, I would like to see many of them have a change of heart when it comes to becoming American citizens rather than corporate citizens. I am not advocating giving away a so called "free lunch" however, it would be nice to see a patriotic motive at least on a same level as a profit motive. I submit to you when that happens not only will they enrich themselves even more , that income gap we all seem to be debating will decrease.

 

[PredFan]

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[3] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.[3] The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile
Wealth in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government,to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people."-- John F. Kennedy

Now while each of us have our own opinion on the matter, on a personal level, I tend to think that Govt. has a rightful place to see to it that those who cannot see for themselves, its Seniors, its disabled, and those who sacrificed for it (Military, etc) are taken care of. Part of being a citizen in this nation is to not only share in its bounty but to also share in the responsibility of it. While not speaking for others, I have always felt things such as taxes were a responsibilty for such things. The roads we drive on, the aircraft we flew in the Navy, and helping the soldier or sailor who gave so much for his or her nation. This seperation of "Them" and " Us" is a very bad thing for our nation because WE are all in this together and as soon as people begin to realize that then perhaps things might begin turn around a little. I might remind some here too, that in the past 10 years American companies have let go of 2.9 Million Americans and hired 2.4 Million people overseas, and in light of such things as this, wouldn't it be prudent as Americans to remind these companies that its not a bad thing from time to time to put one's nation above one's dollar.

You should be very careful with the data...and how it is ascertained.
It is misleading.

1. If you don’t see it, is it still there?? The stock market boom of the ‘90’s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple:
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf

Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data. But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution. Remember, before the changes in the tax code, late ‘80’s, investment income of our middle-income earners was all counted on tax returns. Thus, once it was no longer counted, it appeared that the income of the middle was sharply decreased, while that of the rich appeared to receive the major portion of said distributution!

a. Capital gains tax rate cuts in ’97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.


2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


BTW...the increases in wealth of every quartile increased at least as fast as the top.

While aggregate household net
wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf

While I don't dispute data, that indicates consumption as well as taking into account "various" bubbles, it does appear at least from every source , I can read, including almost all Govt. sources, that the gap between the rich and poor seems to be growing. When I have the chance I will locate it, but I also seem to recall a statistic somewhere from the Census, that a survey was taken of many of those in the top 1% and it seemed to indicated a vast majority of that wealth is not earned through "work" per se, bur rather investments, etc. However, let me say this, I not only admire many of those who have gotten to the top 1% but indeed think it's not a good thing to seperate them away from everyone else. Having said that, I would like to see many of them have a change of heart when it comes to becoming American citizens rather than corporate citizens. I am not advocating giving away a so called "free lunch" however, it would be nice to see a patriotic motive at least on a same level as a profit motive. I submit to you when that happens not only will they enrich themselves even more , that income gap we all seem to be debating will decrease.

If the gap is growing, how is it the fault of the wealthy? Or how is it any more the fault of the wealthy than the fault of the poor?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Those same "job creators" are sitting on their money and making more via capital gains instead of creating jobs.

Where is the "risk" in sitting on a big pile of cash?

Sitting on about $2 or $3Trillion, yes.

Hmm, and why is that? Anyone? Bueller?

Let's ask Steve Wynn

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu-P_lK-NeU]Steve Wynn - "Obama greatest wet-blanket on jobs and business in my lifetime" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You wont get a straight answer from him. As long as the wealthy get screwed he's fine. That's the bottom line here.

Those same "job creators" are sitting on their money and making more via capital gains instead of creating jobs.

Where is the "risk" in sitting on a big pile of cash?

Sitting on about $2 or $3Trillion, yes.

Obama and Pelosi could piss that away in 6 months

 

[PoliticalChic]

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[3] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.[3] The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile
Wealth in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government,to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people."-- John F. Kennedy

Now while each of us have our own opinion on the matter, on a personal level, I tend to think that Govt. has a rightful place to see to it that those who cannot see for themselves, its Seniors, its disabled, and those who sacrificed for it (Military, etc) are taken care of. Part of being a citizen in this nation is to not only share in its bounty but to also share in the responsibility of it. While not speaking for others, I have always felt things such as taxes were a responsibilty for such things. The roads we drive on, the aircraft we flew in the Navy, and helping the soldier or sailor who gave so much for his or her nation. This seperation of "Them" and " Us" is a very bad thing for our nation because WE are all in this together and as soon as people begin to realize that then perhaps things might begin turn around a little. I might remind some here too, that in the past 10 years American companies have let go of 2.9 Million Americans and hired 2.4 Million people overseas, and in light of such things as this, wouldn't it be prudent as Americans to remind these companies that its not a bad thing from time to time to put one's nation above one's dollar.

You should be very careful with the data...and how it is ascertained.
It is misleading.

1. If you don’t see it, is it still there?? The stock market boom of the ‘90’s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple:
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf

Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data. But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution. Remember, before the changes in the tax code, late ‘80’s, investment income of our middle-income earners was all counted on tax returns. Thus, once it was no longer counted, it appeared that the income of the middle was sharply decreased, while that of the rich appeared to receive the major portion of said distributution!

a. Capital gains tax rate cuts in ’97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.


2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


BTW...the increases in wealth of every quartile increased at least as fast as the top.

While aggregate household net
wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf

While I don't dispute data, that indicates consumption as well as taking into account "various" bubbles, it does appear at least from every source , I can read, including almost all Govt. sources, that the gap between the rich and poor seems to be growing. When I have the chance I will locate it, but I also seem to recall a statistic somewhere from the Census, that a survey was taken of many of those in the top 1% and it seemed to indicated a vast majority of that wealth is not earned through "work" per se, bur rather investments, etc. However, let me say this, I not only admire many of those who have gotten to the top 1% but indeed think it's not a good thing to seperate them away from everyone else. Having said that, I would like to see many of them have a change of heart when it comes to becoming American citizens rather than corporate citizens. I am not advocating giving away a so called "free lunch" however, it would be nice to see a patriotic motive at least on a same level as a profit motive. I submit to you when that happens not only will they enrich themselves even more , that income gap we all seem to be debating will decrease.

Thank you for looking into this!

Not enough folks are prepared to do so!

Let me add this, Navy, as it also pertains to how the data is ascertained:

1. Any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%.
Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

2. Similarly, changes in the bottom limit, or threshold, of any top income group appears to be rapidly increasing the top groups income…when in reality, it is the increase of the group below the top that has the benefit.

a. Thus, as the incomes of those in the second 10% grows into the top 10%, we must now add incomes of those from the next group below. This makes the higher level appear to grow, while the lower group adds lower income earners in order to have the proper number to make 10% of the total. The effect is due to increase in incomes below the threshold!

b. In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich.’

c. Example? The top fifth of household incomes began at $68,352 in 1980 (in 2004 dollars). But by 2004, the incomes of so many in the second 20% had increased above the former $68,352 threshold that the top 20% of earners now started at $88,029 in 2004! Therefore, if one calculates the mean average of all the incomes above $88,029 in 2004 it will be considerably higher than if you averaged all the incomes above the $68,352 as we did in 1980.

The essential point is that this statistical effect does not mean that the rich are getting richer…it means more people are getting rich, and reflects the rising general prosperity!
I recommend Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb." The above explaned in chapter nine.

There is a political benefit for certain groups to convice Americans that others are doiing far better...

 

[toxicmedia]

"I find it amusing how the top 1% has gotten the other 99% of Republicans to champion their cause..."
Tox....you silly boy. All of us, who you choose to call Republicans, but are merely astute Americans, understand what you do not: every one of us has the opportunity to attain whatsoever level we work for.

"I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery.
Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times


Coolidge gave the 'key:'
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."


BTW...Coolidge was a Republican. And conservative.

What a coincidence...I myself am an astute American, I hope, and I fully agree that every one of us has the opportunity to attain whatsoever level we work for. I can't imagine what would have made you think otherwise. Having said that.....If you want to champion the cause of the extremely wealthy...because you might be so someday...that is actually a good reason to do so. I'm having a hard time believing that the people who vote Republican and are not part of the top 1% share the same reason.

But hey!.....I have another question for you if you'll indulge me.......what kind of accent does Ann Coulter have?...that lilt.....sort of a pompous little lilt?.....I know she's from Connecticut...but they don't speak that way there. What is going on with how she talks?...You know...those overemphasized R's, and painfully intense enunciation.....

Well, my fellow astute America, your statement..."I find it amusing how the top 1% has gotten the other 99% of Republicans to champion their cause".....implies a lack of understanding of the post to which you are- ostensibly- responding.

"The top 1%," as you put it....is hardly the object of my- or our- support. No...it is the opportunity that all of us have to achieve that lofty aerie!

Get it?
Hmm....your assumption of 'asute' may not be warranted.

I refuse to deny anyone the opportunity.
I may- or may not- aspire to same!
But, in a free society, that should be my business, and mine
alone!

".......what kind of accent does Ann Coulter have?..."
Why you linguistic philological bigot!

Insults......tsk tsk tsk......I expected more.

I do not with hate, nor am I intolerant, regarding Ann Coulter's right to create her own accent that doesn't exist in nature.

If you say people who vote Republican, and support euqality in taxation for the top 1% of the wealthy in the US, because getting wealthy is a great thing.....I'm not arguing.

 

[DiamondDave]

And everyone else ponying up 28% on every dollar earned with no exceptions and no deductions, right??

You wont get a straight answer from him. As long as the wealthy get screwed he's fine. That's the bottom line here.

Those same "job creators" are sitting on their money and making more via capital gains instead of creating jobs.

Where is the "risk" in sitting on a big pile of cash?

ABS... care to actually answer??

 

[PoliticalChic]

What a coincidence...I myself am an astute American, I hope, and I fully agree that every one of us has the opportunity to attain whatsoever level we work for. I can't imagine what would have made you think otherwise. Having said that.....If you want to champion the cause of the extremely wealthy...because you might be so someday...that is actually a good reason to do so. I'm having a hard time believing that the people who vote Republican and are not part of the top 1% share the same reason.

But hey!.....I have another question for you if you'll indulge me.......what kind of accent does Ann Coulter have?...that lilt.....sort of a pompous little lilt?.....I know she's from Connecticut...but they don't speak that way there. What is going on with how she talks?...You know...those overemphasized R's, and painfully intense enunciation.....

Well, my fellow astute America, your statement..."I find it amusing how the top 1% has gotten the other 99% of Republicans to champion their cause".....implies a lack of understanding of the post to which you are- ostensibly- responding.

"The top 1%," as you put it....is hardly the object of my- or our- support. No...it is the opportunity that all of us have to achieve that lofty aerie!

Get it?
Hmm....your assumption of 'asute' may not be warranted.

I refuse to deny anyone the opportunity.
I may- or may not- aspire to same!
But, in a free society, that should be my business, and mine
alone!

".......what kind of accent does Ann Coulter have?..."
Why you linguistic philological bigot!

Insults......tsk tsk tsk......I expected more.

I do not with hate, nor am I intolerant, regarding Ann Coulter's right to create her own accent that doesn't exist in nature.

If you say people who vote Republican, and support euqality in taxation for the top 1% of the wealthy in the US, because getting wealthy is a great thing.....I'm not arguing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4trn2lJxl00]Wizard of Oz- Put em up - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Navy1960]

You should be very careful with the data...and how it is ascertained.
It is misleading.

1. If you don’t see it, is it still there?? The stock market boom of the ‘90’s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple:
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf

Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data. But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution. Remember, before the changes in the tax code, late ‘80’s, investment income of our middle-income earners was all counted on tax returns. Thus, once it was no longer counted, it appeared that the income of the middle was sharply decreased, while that of the rich appeared to receive the major portion of said distributution!

a. Capital gains tax rate cuts in ’97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.


2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


BTW...the increases in wealth of every quartile increased at least as fast as the top.

While aggregate household net
wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf

While I don't dispute data, that indicates consumption as well as taking into account "various" bubbles, it does appear at least from every source , I can read, including almost all Govt. sources, that the gap between the rich and poor seems to be growing. When I have the chance I will locate it, but I also seem to recall a statistic somewhere from the Census, that a survey was taken of many of those in the top 1% and it seemed to indicated a vast majority of that wealth is not earned through "work" per se, bur rather investments, etc. However, let me say this, I not only admire many of those who have gotten to the top 1% but indeed think it's not a good thing to seperate them away from everyone else. Having said that, I would like to see many of them have a change of heart when it comes to becoming American citizens rather than corporate citizens. I am not advocating giving away a so called "free lunch" however, it would be nice to see a patriotic motive at least on a same level as a profit motive. I submit to you when that happens not only will they enrich themselves even more , that income gap we all seem to be debating will decrease.

Thank you for looking into this!

Not enough folks are prepared to do so!

Let me add this, Navy, as it also pertains to how the data is ascertained:

1. Any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%.
Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

2. Similarly, changes in the bottom limit, or threshold, of any top income group appears to be rapidly increasing the top groups income…when in reality, it is the increase of the group below the top that has the benefit.

a. Thus, as the incomes of those in the second 10% grows into the top 10%, we must now add incomes of those from the next group below. This makes the higher level appear to grow, while the lower group adds lower income earners in order to have the proper number to make 10% of the total. The effect is due to increase in incomes below the threshold!

b. In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich.’

c. Example? The top fifth of household incomes began at $68,352 in 1980 (in 2004 dollars). But by 2004, the incomes of so many in the second 20% had increased above the former $68,352 threshold that the top 20% of earners now started at $88,029 in 2004! Therefore, if one calculates the mean average of all the incomes above $88,029 in 2004 it will be considerably higher than if you averaged all the incomes above the $68,352 as we did in 1980.

The essential point is that this statistical effect does not mean that the rich are getting richer…it means more people are getting rich, and reflects the rising general prosperity!
I recommend Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb." The above explaned in chapter nine.

There is a political benefit for certain groups to convice Americans that others are doiing far better...

You might be surprised what my conclusion is, I am of the opinion as a whole no one in our nation is doing very well at the moment when compared to past economic times. I am of the opinion that we have been slow to respond to the changes in the global economy and at times unwilling to change the way we do things and at other times too willing to sell ourselves to the highest bidder. Frankly, when top income earners as well as corporations see that the word " Made in the USA" is no longer something to be scoffed at but rather something that we as citizens are demanding , then those very same top income earners who are not less American than I am will reap the benefits as well as all those who wish to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While aggregate household net
wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf

While I don't dispute data, that indicates consumption as well as taking into account "various" bubbles, it does appear at least from every source , I can read, including almost all Govt. sources, that the gap between the rich and poor seems to be growing. When I have the chance I will locate it, but I also seem to recall a statistic somewhere from the Census, that a survey was taken of many of those in the top 1% and it seemed to indicated a vast majority of that wealth is not earned through "work" per se, bur rather investments, etc. However, let me say this, I not only admire many of those who have gotten to the top 1% but indeed think it's not a good thing to seperate them away from everyone else. Having said that, I would like to see many of them have a change of heart when it comes to becoming American citizens rather than corporate citizens. I am not advocating giving away a so called "free lunch" however, it would be nice to see a patriotic motive at least on a same level as a profit motive. I submit to you when that happens not only will they enrich themselves even more , that income gap we all seem to be debating will decrease.

Thank you for looking into this!

Not enough folks are prepared to do so!

Let me add this, Navy, as it also pertains to how the data is ascertained:

1. Any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%.
Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

2. Similarly, changes in the bottom limit, or threshold, of any top income group appears to be rapidly increasing the top groups income…when in reality, it is the increase of the group below the top that has the benefit.

a. Thus, as the incomes of those in the second 10% grows into the top 10%, we must now add incomes of those from the next group below. This makes the higher level appear to grow, while the lower group adds lower income earners in order to have the proper number to make 10% of the total. The effect is due to increase in incomes below the threshold!

b. In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich.’

c. Example? The top fifth of household incomes began at $68,352 in 1980 (in 2004 dollars). But by 2004, the incomes of so many in the second 20% had increased above the former $68,352 threshold that the top 20% of earners now started at $88,029 in 2004! Therefore, if one calculates the mean average of all the incomes above $88,029 in 2004 it will be considerably higher than if you averaged all the incomes above the $68,352 as we did in 1980.

The essential point is that this statistical effect does not mean that the rich are getting richer…it means more people are getting rich, and reflects the rising general prosperity!
I recommend Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb." The above explaned in chapter nine.

There is a political benefit for certain groups to convice Americans that others are doiing far better...

You might be surprised what my conclusion is, I am of the opinion as a whole no one in our nation is doing very well at the moment when compared to past economic times. I am of the opinion that we have been slow to respond to the changes in the global economy and at times unwilling to change the way we do things and at other times too willing to sell ourselves to the highest bidder. Frankly, when top income earners as well as corporations see that the word " Made in the USA" is no longer something to be scoffed at but rather something that we as citizens are demanding , then those very same top income earners who are not less American than I am will reap the benefits as well as all those who wish to.

"...we have been slow to respond to the changes in the global economy..."
At the very least!

1. Simply by increasing the size of government, we have added the huge overlay of bureaucracy and autonomous agencies that, by their very nature, use the powers they have been given.

" While the rest of the economy is stuck or shrinking, government just grows and grows. As Mark Steyn brings out in his book After America, “In the ’50s, 1 in 20 members of the workforce needed government permission in order to do his job. Today, it’s one in three.” And it’s a self-feeding monster. Federal regulatory compliance cost an outrageous $1.13 trillion in 2005—nearly 10 percent of gdp. That doesn’t even count the cost of state and local red tape."
Triumph of the Small-Minded Bureaucrats | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

2. A far more sinister outlook seems at play when we have an administration that restrains our use of our own energy resources...yet looks across the Caribbean at Cuba drilling....

3. "...when compared to past economic times."

H.W. Brands who wrote “American Colossus: The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1865-1900” agrees with you:

"An interesting historical anomaly is the period 1945 through 1965, a golden age in many ways. This was the period after the war, when any of our potential competitors were rebuilding from the devastation, making it impossible for the United States economy not to thrive. Beneficiaries included the unions and blue collar high school graduates…who were assured of high paying jobs. That is no longer true, and probably won’t be again, short of a third World War.

4. "Made in the USA" ...I think Cain has this in mind by reducing corporate taxes to 9% from 35%, which should bring many of the jobs back from overseas.

 

[Jarhead]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

The GOP does not "protect" the wealthy. That is just spin used by the democratic party in an effort to use class warfare to gain support.

You see, the democratic party knows people are foolish enough to believe that the GOP protects the wealthy...and sadly, they are correct....people DO believe it.

No, the GOP do not try to protect the wealthy.

The GOP protects the rights and liberties of ALL Americans...including the wealthy.

 

[WillowTree]

I don't mind that the rich have more money.........

I just want them to pay their fair share of taxes instead of the 17 percent only they pay on capital gains (which is how most of the wealthy make their money).

Us working stiffs with real jobs? We're in for 28 percent.

And if they, you, and everyone else all paid 17% on every dollar earned, regardless of source, and with no exceptions deductions or whatever... you would be OK with that??

Not really, because we've got a national debt problem.

Would be nice if the wealthy would pony up their fair share of at least 28 percent though.

what you nutshells keep glossing over is the fact that they the rich paid that 28% or more on the original money the 17 per cent is paid on the interest on the money they saved. Now you working stiffs go to work save 25% of what you earn and the interest you accrued will be taxed at 17% see how that works. in the end you've ended up paying 17% + 28% which = 45%. Now get busy

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

The republican's don't support the wealthy over the middle class.

They support opportunity for every american through hard work by keeping the government out of the way.......well I should say conservatives and libertarians do that, not republicans .

I find it interesting that you are parroting a dishonest talking point then calling others "shameless cowards"

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

The GOP does not "protect" the wealthy. That is just spin used by the democratic party in an effort to use class warfare to gain support.

You see, the democratic party knows people are foolish enough to believe that the GOP protects the wealthy...and sadly, they are correct....people DO believe it.

No, the GOP do not try to protect the wealthy.

The GOP protects the rights and liberties of ALL Americans...including the wealthy.

Yup the republicans are for creating the opportunity for anyone and everyone to succeed if they are willing to work really hard at it.

Problem is all these govt actions over the last few decades have decimated these opportunities.....and both parties played along, hence the tea parties popping up and reshaping the GOP a little bit more back to its roots.

 

[noose4]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

It's truly amazing, many of them cheer when unions are busted and the wages and benefits of working people are reduced and then they turn around and call class warfare when it is pointed out that the people who are reducing the wages and benefits of the working people are doing better financially now than they ever have before.

You forget, those jobs don't belong to the employees, they belong to the owners of the corporations that control the benefits and pay. They can pay whatever they want to and provide wnatever benefits they want to, or even none at all.

I forget nothing, without the workforce the corporation makes nothing, and the person that dedicates years of their life working for a company is more invested than some speculator that throws a few dollars into it by buying stock.

 

[noose4]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

The GOP does not "protect" the wealthy. That is just spin used by the democratic party in an effort to use class warfare to gain support.

You see, the democratic party knows people are foolish enough to believe that the GOP protects the wealthy...and sadly, they are correct....people DO believe it.

No, the GOP do not try to protect the wealthy.

The GOP protects the rights and liberties of ALL Americans...including the wealthy.

That is horse crap, the biggest stand the G.O.P. has taken in years was when the President was going to let the Bush tax break for the wealthy expire, they were willing to let everybody's taxes go up as a weapon to protect the wealthy from having to pay a little bit more.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

The republican's don't support the wealthy over the middle class.

They support opportunity for every american through hard work by keeping the government out of the way.......well I should say conservatives and libertarians do that, not republicans .

I find it interesting that you are parroting a dishonest talking point then calling others "shameless cowards"

Really? Then why have the policies of the last administration favored mostly the rich and the corporations?

Wanna talk about removing the Wall St. regulations?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You wont get a straight answer from him. As long as the wealthy get screwed he's fine. That's the bottom line here.

Those same "job creators" are sitting on their money and making more via capital gains instead of creating jobs.

Where is the "risk" in sitting on a big pile of cash?

Is everyone not free to do as they wish with what they own?? Or is it just the 'rich' that have to do the bidding of others?? Are they not allowed to invest on the risks they want? Wait for the opportunity they want? Start a business or hire when they want?

Sure.......they ARE free to do as they wish. It's just when their wishes are to donate obscene amounts of cash anonymously to politicians who then pass legislation to remove regulations that are there to keep the markets from pancaking like they've done, I have issue with that.

I can't donate hundreds of dollars to get a politician to support my cause, so what chance do I have against some super PAC that gives millions?

We've got the best government money can buy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Those same "job creators" are sitting on their money and making more via capital gains instead of creating jobs.

Where is the "risk" in sitting on a big pile of cash?

Is everyone not free to do as they wish with what they own?? Or is it just the 'rich' that have to do the bidding of others?? Are they not allowed to invest on the risks they want? Wait for the opportunity they want? Start a business or hire when they want?

Sure.......they ARE free to do as they wish. It's just when their wishes are to donate obscene amounts of cash anonymously to politicians who then pass legislation to remove regulations that are there to keep the markets from pancaking like they've done, I have issue with that.

I can't donate hundreds of dollars to get a politician to support my cause, so what chance do I have against some super PAC that gives millions?

We've got the best government money can buy.

Now care to answer the other question posed??

 

[The Rabbi]

Is everyone not free to do as they wish with what they own?? Or is it just the 'rich' that have to do the bidding of others?? Are they not allowed to invest on the risks they want? Wait for the opportunity they want? Start a business or hire when they want?

Sure.......they ARE free to do as they wish. It's just when their wishes are to donate obscene amounts of cash anonymously to politicians who then pass legislation to remove regulations that are there to keep the markets from pancaking like they've done, I have issue with that.

I can't donate hundreds of dollars to get a politician to support my cause, so what chance do I have against some super PAC that gives millions?

We've got the best government money can buy.

Now care to answer the other question posed??

You wont get a straight answer. He is stuck on class envy and the idea that some other guy makes more money than he can.
It is pathetic, really.