francoHFW
Diamond Member
How? Link?
The intolerance is exclusively left-wing
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
francoHFW
Diamond Member
We are casting pearls before swine, Mr Beale....Franco isn't capable of learning.
No, in 2008, dumbass. THAT GOP scam. In 1929, it was hugely overvalued stock market because of of selling on margin- THAT GOP scam. In 1989, it was the GOP S+L scam crisis- None of which had anything to do with the Fed.
So you dupes are saying it's better to have this gd mess of panics and runs? I don't think so...
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
yes. BTW, the play's over, the dupes can relax and go back to violence on muslims and gays and blacks...
- Sep 16, 2012
- 74,946
- 71,949
- 3,605
Wow, are you dumb.That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Even your own chart shows less natural business cycles and more inflation after the imposition of the FED and the elimination of gold and silver. You are indeed hopeless.
You are probably clueless as to the real reason how the top .01% are able to concentrate their wealth so effectively.
Dale is right, no point in discussing anything with you.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
And a helluva lot less deflation and chaos.Wow, are you dumb.That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Even your own chart shows less natural business cycles and more inflation after the imposition of the FED and the elimination of gold and silver. You are indeed hopeless.
You are probably clueless as to the real reason how the top .01% are able to concentrate their wealth so effectively.
Dale is right, no point in discussing anything with you.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Because the 1% pay less %wise in taxes than the middle class now? Thanks to Reaganism and dupes like you?Wow, are you dumb.That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Even your own chart shows less natural business cycles and more inflation after the imposition of the FED and the elimination of gold and silver. You are indeed hopeless.
You are probably clueless as to the real reason how the top .01% are able to concentrate their wealth so effectively.
Dale is right, no point in discussing anything with you.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 74,946
- 71,949
- 3,605
Because the 1% pay less %wise in taxes than the middle class now? Thanks to Reaganism and dupes like you?Wow, are you dumb.That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Even your own chart shows less natural business cycles and more inflation after the imposition of the FED and the elimination of gold and silver. You are indeed hopeless.
You are probably clueless as to the real reason how the top .01% are able to concentrate their wealth so effectively.
Dale is right, no point in discussing anything with you.
No they don't.
The 1% pay and effective tax rate of over 24%. The middle class, even the upper middle class don't pay anything over an effective rate of 20%.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Yup, things were always great before the Fed. NOT.Wow, are you dumb.That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Even your own chart shows less natural business cycles and more inflation after the imposition of the FED and the elimination of gold and silver. You are indeed hopeless.
You are probably clueless as to the real reason how the top .01% are able to concentrate their wealth so effectively.
Dale is right, no point in discussing anything with you.
List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia
Timmy
Gold Member
- Oct 2, 2015
- 22,432
- 2,843
- 290
You're having the same problem that Franco is having. I'm not going to argue with you there, not much.
What's your point ? Other than the 2nd, the GOP wipes their ass with the bill o rights .
You are confusing globalists and statists of US inc. with sovereign citizens of these united states that understand the intent of the framers. I would say that folks in the DNC are just as guilty if not more guilty of the same thing. I remember once seeing a press conference with a California Senator, I think it was Boxer, who said we should limit the freedom of the press to "licensed" journalists. WTF?
They ALL voted to reauthorize the NDAA and the Patriot Act. None of them are, as a group, guiltless in my view. They are all tyrannical establishment pieces of shit, beholden to the Council of 300.
Liar ! You need to look at the vote count . While some Dems voted for it the majority was all GOP . The nays were almost all Dems.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Then start counting more than just the fed income tax.Because the 1% pay less %wise in taxes than the middle class now? Thanks to Reaganism and dupes like you?Wow, are you dumb.That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Even your own chart shows less natural business cycles and more inflation after the imposition of the FED and the elimination of gold and silver. You are indeed hopeless.
You are probably clueless as to the real reason how the top .01% are able to concentrate their wealth so effectively.
Dale is right, no point in discussing anything with you.
No they don't.
The 1% pay and effective tax rate of over 24%. The middle class, even the upper middle class don't pay anything over an effective rate of 20%.
The one tax graph you really need to know
Either way, the richest now get almost all the new wealth...because they don't PAY ENOUGH. (Most GOP dupes think 47% don't pay any taxes)- then the country and the middle class fall apart...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
- Sep 16, 2012
- 74,946
- 71,949
- 3,605
The entire Bill of Rights was written by elites who believed in natural law. We are now burdened by elites who believe that the state should impose man's law over sovereign free people. This nation was founded by people who rejected the notion of "divine right."
For the "right," tolerance means accepting people of different life styles, different faiths, etc., letting them have the freedom to do what ever they wish, say what ever they wish, practice their beliefs in any manner they wish, so long as it does not harm the community at large. That was the intent behind the Bill of Rights.
As far as the Patriot Act goes? On the re-authorization of it, I counted 54 Republicans, and 35 Democrats, I'd say that is pretty bi-partisan.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,415
- 2,180
We are casting pearls before swine, Mr Beale....Franco isn't capable of learning.No, in 2008, dumbass. THAT GOP scam. In 1929, it was hugely overvalued stock market because of of selling on margin- THAT GOP scam. In 1989, it was the GOP S+L scam crisis- None of which had anything to do with the Fed.
So you dupes are saying it's better to have this gd mess of panics and runs? I don't think so...
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Sorry, turd, but not every one of those peaks or troughs represent a "panic." And note, the historical data was constructed by a political science professor - a Marxist, in other words. Your graph is propaganda.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 74,946
- 71,949
- 3,605
Then start counting more than just the fed income tax.Because the 1% pay less %wise in taxes than the middle class now? Thanks to Reaganism and dupes like you?Wow, are you dumb.That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?No. . . . actually, it's a FACT.
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Even your own chart shows less natural business cycles and more inflation after the imposition of the FED and the elimination of gold and silver. You are indeed hopeless.
You are probably clueless as to the real reason how the top .01% are able to concentrate their wealth so effectively.
Dale is right, no point in discussing anything with you.
No they don't.
The 1% pay and effective tax rate of over 24%. The middle class, even the upper middle class don't pay anything over an effective rate of 20%.
The one tax graph you really need to know
Either way, the richest now get almost all the new wealth...because they don't PAY ENOUGH. (Most GOP dupes think 47% don't pay any taxes)- then the country and the middle class fall apart...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
Nice post.
And the CFR media has done an excellent job distracting you from the real problem. I won't deny any of this is true, but it is really quite inconsequential for the poor and middle class, this is genius for the elites that control the way you think, isn't it?
Did you know that at the turn of the 20th century, an ounce of gold was about $20? That is roughly how much it cost for a custom tailored suit.
Today, an ounce of gold goes for about $1200. That is the same price of a decent custom tailored suit.
Tell me what that means for the food and energy you consume?
You can sit here and quote for me articles from sources run by elite CFR media, who are in turn run by the same elite 1% that you are railing against, but if you don't see the flaw in your argumentation, and don't understand that you are getting your ideas from the very folks that you seem to be railing against, then you are just too obtuse to continue this conversation.
If you still haven't figured out what I am talking about, then you will never get it.
Last edited:
- Sep 16, 2012
- 74,946
- 71,949
- 3,605
Actually, I have no problem with his graph, he just doesn't understand what it is saying, it is INFLATION.
We are casting pearls before swine, Mr Beale....Franco isn't capable of learning.No, in 2008, dumbass. THAT GOP scam. In 1929, it was hugely overvalued stock market because of of selling on margin- THAT GOP scam. In 1989, it was the GOP S+L scam crisis- None of which had anything to do with the Fed.
So you dupes are saying it's better to have this gd mess of panics and runs? I don't think so...
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Sorry, turd, but not every one of those peaks or troughs represent a "panic." And note, the historical data was constructed by a political science professor - a Marxist, in other words. Your graph is propaganda.
This means, the amount of blue we see on the chart, is the total amount of time that the dollar is inflating. If it spikes and comes back down quickly, that is a normal business cycle. If it goes slowly up, the dollar is abnormally losing value. If we see, in any period of one hundred years, a lot of blue, as opposed to sharp peaks or dips, than the currency will lose value.
If it rises quickly but quickly returns, than the currency retains it's value.
As it is, we see from history, the currency has lost more value over the last twenty years than all previous history combined. There has been no deflationary pressure whatsoever.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 74,946
- 71,949
- 3,605
If the currency deflates, those who are in charge will lose their seats at the table, and they damn well know it.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
All I know is, the GOP is killing the country every time they get in, and over the last 35 years, and their propaganda machine is FOS, as are the dupes with all their conspiracy theories and bs character assassination and intolerance..Then start counting more than just the fed income tax.Because the 1% pay less %wise in taxes than the middle class now? Thanks to Reaganism and dupes like you?Wow, are you dumb.That's one biased way of looking at it. How do you explain this?
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Even your own chart shows less natural business cycles and more inflation after the imposition of the FED and the elimination of gold and silver. You are indeed hopeless.
You are probably clueless as to the real reason how the top .01% are able to concentrate their wealth so effectively.
Dale is right, no point in discussing anything with you.
No they don't.
The 1% pay and effective tax rate of over 24%. The middle class, even the upper middle class don't pay anything over an effective rate of 20%.
The one tax graph you really need to know
Either way, the richest now get almost all the new wealth...because they don't PAY ENOUGH. (Most GOP dupes think 47% don't pay any taxes)- then the country and the middle class fall apart...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
Nice post.
And the CFR media has done an excellent job distracting you from the real problem. I won't deny any of this is true, but it is really quite inconsequential for the poor and middle class, this is genius for the elites that control the way you think, isn't it?
Did you know that at the turn of the 20th century, an ounce of gold was about $20? That is roughly how much it cost for a custom tailored suit.
Today, an ounce of gold goes for about $1200. That is the same price of a decent custom tailored suit.
Tell me what that means for the food and energy you consume?
You can sit here and quote for me articles from sources run by elite CFR media, who are in turn run by the same elite 1% that you are railing against, but if you don't see the flaw in your argumentation, and don't understand that you are getting your ideas from the very folks that you seem to be railing against, then you are just too obtuse to continue this conversation.
If you still haven't figured out what I am talking about, then you will never get it.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Why was a steak dinner 10 cents in 1900? I don't get your graph...And 1970 was 47 years ago. Why does inflation take off in 1970 if it's about the fed?Actually, I have no problem with his graph, he just doesn't understand what it is saying, it is INFLATION.
We are casting pearls before swine, Mr Beale....Franco isn't capable of learning.No, in 2008, dumbass. THAT GOP scam. In 1929, it was hugely overvalued stock market because of of selling on margin- THAT GOP scam. In 1989, it was the GOP S+L scam crisis- None of which had anything to do with the Fed.
So you dupes are saying it's better to have this gd mess of panics and runs? I don't think so...
Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.
Sorry, turd, but not every one of those peaks or troughs represent a "panic." And note, the historical data was constructed by a political science professor - a Marxist, in other words. Your graph is propaganda.
This means, the amount of blue we see on the chart, is the total amount of time that the dollar is inflating. If it spikes and comes back down quickly, that is a normal business cycle. If it goes slowly up, the dollar is abnormally losing value. If we see, in any period of one hundred years, a lot of blue, as opposed to sharp peaks or dips, than the currency will lose value.
If it rises quickly but quickly returns, than the currency retains it's value.
As it is, we see from history, the currency has lost more value over the last twenty years than all previous history combined. There has been no deflationary pressure whatsoever.
Prices
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Russia Remade Its Economy for War, but It’s Come at a Huge Cost - The New York Times- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 0
-
-
