Why would conservatives vote for DeSantis?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not as much as under Reagan. Look at the chart I posted. Real after tax for most Americans began to decline after 1980.

Top 1% always does better than the bottom 99%.
There is no upper bound.

Real after tax for most Americans began to decline after 1980.

No, it didn't.

 

[Hector12]

Real after tax for most Americans began to decline after 1980.

No, it didn't.

Yes it did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes it did.

View attachment 770626

You're a liberal idiot.
You can't read your own chart.

 

[Hector12]

Top 1% always does better than the bottom 99%.
There is no upper bound.

Forbes,

How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S.​

Frederick E. Allen
Former Staff
I am the Leadership Editor of Forbes.

a rising tide does not necessarily lift all ships. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% of households doubled their share of pretax income while the share of the bottom 80% fell. Then came the great recession.

Economists including David Moss of the Harvard Business School noticed that "the last time inequality rose to its current heights was in the late 1920s, just before a financial meltdown. . . . In 2010, Moss plotted inequality and bank failures since 1864 on the same graph; he found an eerily close fit."

How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S.

English: A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) New research indicates that growing income inequality isn't just unpleasant; it is seriously hurting the U.S. economy. And economists are...

www.forbes.com

 

[Hector12]

You're a liberal idiot.
You can't read your own chart.

What did I miss on the chart?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did I miss on the chart?

It doesn't show that real after-tax income for most Americans began to decline after 1980.

 

[Hector12]

It doesn't show that real after-tax income for most Americans began to decline after 1980.

OK, I will give you one point for that. The real decline began with the inflationary recession of 1974. The decline continued during the Reagan administration.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK, I will give you one point for that. The real decline began with the inflationary recession of 1974. The decline continued during the Reagan administration.

Show me.

 

[Hector12]

Show me.

I have done so three times. The article I posted from Forbes confirmed what the chart claimed.

 

[bripat9643]

We differ on their motivation. You probably think economic conservatives want a small government that does not interfere with freedom. They interpret freedom as the ability to get and remain rich.

That's definitely part of freedom, douchebag.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have done so three times. The article I posted from Forbes confirmed what the chart claimed.

You're confused. You've posted nothing that proved that real after-tax income for most Americans began to decline after 1980. Or after 1974.

It's math, so I'm not surprised that you, as a liberal, don't understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have done so three times. The article I posted from Forbes confirmed what the chart claimed.

Forbes "The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% of households doubled their share of pretax income while the share of the bottom 80% fell"

You see, "share fell" doesn't mean the same thing as "real after-tax income fell".

 

[Hector12]

Forbes "The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% of households doubled their share of pretax income while the share of the bottom 80% fell"

You see, "share fell" doesn't mean the same thing as "real after-tax income fell".

The chart on the left demonstrates that average household income for the lower sixty percent of the US population was stagnant from 1979 to 2007.

Those people did not benefit from Republican tax cuts for the rich. They have been jeopardized by the increase in the national debt, because it made it difficult for the Democrats to fund domestic spending programs that would help them, such as the universal health coverage other affluent democracies enjoy.

 

[Indeependent]

The chart on the right demonstrates that average household income for the lower sixty percent of the US population was stagnant from 1979 to 2007.

View attachment 770646

Those people did not benefit from Republican tax cuts for the rich. They have been jeopardized by the increase in the national debt, because it made it difficult for the Democrats to fund domestic spending programs that would help them, such as the universal health coverage other affluent democracies enjoy.

The issue is that the Southern Border was open and millions of jobs were either off-shored or US citizens were replaced by Indian H1-Bs.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Forbes,

How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S.​

Frederick E. Allen
Former Staff
I am the Leadership Editor of Forbes.

a rising tide does not necessarily lift all ships. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% of households doubled their share of pretax income while the share of the bottom 80% fell. Then came the great recession.

Economists including David Moss of the Harvard Business School noticed that "the last time inequality rose to its current heights was in the late 1920s, just before a financial meltdown. . . . In 2010, Moss plotted inequality and bank failures since 1864 on the same graph; he found an eerily close fit."

View attachment 770629

How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S.

English: A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) New research indicates that growing income inequality isn't just unpleasant; it is seriously hurting the U.S. economy. And economists are...

www.forbes.com

And what's your answer EQUITY? Wanna know what Equity really is?

 

[Hector12]

The issue is that the Southern Border was open and millions of jobs were either off-shored or US citizens were replaced by Indian H1-Bs.

What you say is true. This is an issue where the Republican base differs form the Republican donor class that determines Republican policy between elections.

 

[Hector12]

And what's your answer EQUITY? Wanna know what Equity really is?

View attachment 770649

I am not in favor of equal incomes. I want the government to reduce economic inequality the way it did during the Franklin Roosevelt administration with a high minimum wage, strong labor unions, and a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

Also, I am opposed to affirmative action and racial reparations. These force lower middle class and working class whites to make sacrifices on behalf of blacks. Democrat support for affirmative action and apparent sympathy with racial reparations are main reasons most lower middle class and working class whites vote Republican.

The New Deal was popular among working class whites and Southern whites. The loss of these constituencies has been catastrophic for the Democrat Party.

 

[sartre play]

The little ones are targets for groomers

Can only speak for my self, well known family and friends.
NO ONE EVER has approached any of us or our children, in an effort to groom us.
But one white male relative did in fact coheres a child into a sexual situation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The chart on the right demonstrates that average household income for the lower sixty percent of the US population was stagnant from 1979 to 2007.

View attachment 770646

Those people did not benefit from Republican tax cuts for the rich. They have been jeopardized by the increase in the national debt, because it made it difficult for the Democrats to fund domestic spending programs that would help them, such as the universal health coverage other affluent democracies enjoy.

The chart on the right demonstrates that average household income for the lower sixty percent of the US population was stagnant from 1979 to 2007.

No, it doesn't.

You confused about what share means?

Those people did not benefit from Republican tax cuts for the rich.

They did benefit from Republican across the board tax cuts.

 

[Hector12]

The chart on the right demonstrates that average household income for the lower sixty percent of the US population was stagnant from 1979 to 2007.

No, it doesn't.

View attachment 770654

You confused about what share means?

Those people did not benefit from Republican tax cuts for the rich.

They did benefit from Republican across the board tax cuts.

Sorry. I meant the chart on the left. I corrected that.