• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another chart that tells the story on our economic share of wealth problem

C

Craig234

Lifer
If we had the same 'rising tide lifting all boats' today we had before Reagan, we wouldn't be talking about the destruction of the middle class and bad economic times.

We don't. It's changed radically. The downturn almost all Americans see is not 'the economy', it's the fraction of the top 1% taking the gains in the economy as it doubled.

inequality-mother-jones.jpg
 
In other news water is wet. I agree there is a real problem but every Presidential candidate including the one you urge is to pick has no real problems nor do the mainstream of both parties. There is nothing for it because you and the majority of people will vote for the status quo or not vote. If one did find an alternative the system virtually guarantees that it will be crushed.
 
How dare someone make money. We will tax the hell out of them and punish them, then give it away to the "less fortunate"............
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
In other news water is wet. I agree there is a real problem but every Presidential candidate including the one you urge is to pick has no real problems nor do the mainstream of both parties. There is nothing for it because you and the majority of people will vote for the status quo or not vote. If one did find an alternative the system virtually guarantees that it will be crushed.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Craig doesn't support anybody who would fight this trend. Who here does, though. None of the current candidates will do a thing about this. Campaign funding absolutely guarantees this will never change until it does.
 
Doppel said:
Exactly. Craig doesn't support anybody who would fight this trend.
Click to expand...

Wrong. How about you speak for you and I'll speak for me, since you do it poorly?

I support a candidate who would fight this trend. Right now, the system is so bad there isn't one running. I support one doing so.

I supported John Edwards in 2008, who would fight this trend - his adultery irrelevant to that issue.

Ralph Nader is trying to recruit some primary challengers for Obama in 2012, and I expect to support them, but it's understood they 'don't have a chance'.

This is why rather than a candidate, I support reform to the system so that such a candidate can get elected - a constitutional amendment against money in politics.

Who here does, though. None of the current candidates will do a thing about this. Campaign funding absolutely guarantees this will never change until it does.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with that.

That's why we need the reform of the political system against money.

Having said that, Obama will be a lot less bad than any of the Republicans running. He's been terrible on reforming Wall Street, but there are other issues, and he's much more likely to support some helpful programs - like taxing the most wealthy more.

If you don't appreciate that, you are not being honest with the facts about the candidates, with false equivalency that they're equally bad.

There's a good book out on this topic about why Obama has failed so badly on these issues, by Ron Susskind. You might learn a lot from it about why that's happened, and why he's a much better choice than the Republicans.

Supporting him doesn't mean I don't oppose him on the areas he's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Matt1970 said:
How dare someone make money. We will tax the hell out of them and punish them, then give it away to the "less fortunate"............
Click to expand...

Although that hasn't happened in nearly 40 years (i.e. tax rates for the top have been dropping over that entire period), if the top don't let a little more of that wealth "trickle down" (in form of jobs, etc.), there soon will be enough people to vote it to themselves and nothing short of leaving the country will stop them from getting it. The "let them eat cake" defense never worked and it won't this time either...count on it.
 
Craig234 said:
Wrong. How about you speak for you and I'll speak for me, since you do it poorly?

I support a candidate who would fight this trend. Right now, the system is so bad there isn't one running. I support one doing so.

I supported John Edwards in 2008, who would fight this trend - his adultery irrelevant to that issue.

Ralph Nader is trying to recruit some primary challengers for Obama in 2012, and I expect to support them, but it's understood they 'don't have a chance'.

This is why rather than a candidate, I support reform to the system so that such a candidate can get elected - a constitutional amendment against money in politics.



I pretty much agree with that.

That's why we need the reform of the political system against money.

Having said that, Obama will be a lot less bad than any of the Republicans running. He's been terrible on reforming Wall Street, but there are other issues, and he's much more likely to support some helpful programs - like taxing the most wealthy more.

If you don't appreciate that, you are not being honest with the facts about the candidates, with false equivalency that they're equally bad.

There's a good book out on this topic about why Obama has failed so badly on these issues, by Ron Susskind. You might learn a lot from it about why that's happened, and why he's a much better choice than the Republicans.

Supporting him doesn't mean I don't oppose him on the areas he's wrong.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with getting rid of corporatism and making everything equal before Federal law by adding an Equality before Federal Law Amendment:

Section 1. the United States Assembled shall not give subsidies to corporations, nor foster any branch of any industry, nor regulate trade, nor regulate commerce nor shall it contract out any of its functions. .
Sec. 2. All cabinets and commisions except those of Defense, Atty General, State, and Treasury are hereby abolished.
Sec 3. No patents shall be recognized by the U.S. government on the date of ratification of this article of Amendment.
Sec. 4. Federal powers of taxation shall be limited exclusively to collecting from the states based upon their population.
Sec. 5. The 17th Amendment is hereby repealed and presidential electors shall be appointed by the state legislatures.
Sec. 6. The Amendments 14, 15, and 19 are hereby repealed.
Sec. 7. [insert Bricker Amendment]
Sec. 8. [Insert Browne Amendment]
sec. 9. All Federal Revenues shall be collected exclusively in silver specie and Congress shall have the power to regulate its value for purpose of Federal taxation only.
Sec. 10. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is hereby abolished.
Sec. 11. State law involving intrastate bankruptcy shall supercede Federal bankruptcy law.


That takes the money out of it doesn't it?

Just asking🙂
 
Matt1970 said:
How dare someone make money. We will tax the hell out of them and punish them, then give it away to the "less fortunate"............
Click to expand...

This is the problem. You think that making the most money and passing it on is the best for our society instead of making a little less money and investing in the society. It's a short-term vs long-term perspective.

I make a lot of money. I pay a lot in taxes. I can pay a bit more in taxes to ensure our society continues to be as strong as it is now.

Further, I can pay more in taxes to ensure that the wealth I do pass on continues to be my future's wealth, whereas eventually, if I give nothing to those who make less, eventually they will get pissed off and take the wealth I try to pass on.

Having an unbalanced economy and wealth system is not good for anybody. We have yet to learn that, but, it's not surprising coming from the country that produced the H1/2/3 and other trash like that which is ME ME ME ME ME FUCK EVERYBODY ELSE AND THE PLANET BECAUSE I CAN!

Americans can be the most noble and the most fucking self centered egotistical fuckwits on the planet. Tragedy of the Commons.
 
Anarchist420 said:
What's wrong with getting rid of corporatism and making everything equal before Federal law by adding an Equality before Federal Law Amendment:

Section 1. the United States Assembled shall not give subsidies to corporations, nor foster any branch of any industry, nor regulate trade, nor regulate commerce nor shall it contract out any of its functions. .
Sec. 2. All cabinets and commisions except those of Defense, Atty General, State, and Treasury are hereby abolished.
Sec 3. No patents shall be recognized by the U.S. government on the date of ratification of this article of Amendment.
Sec. 4. Federal powers of taxation shall be limited exclusively to collecting from the states based upon their population.
Sec. 5. The 17th Amendment is hereby repealed and presidential electors shall be appointed by the state legislatures.
Sec. 6. The Amendments 14, 15, and 19 are hereby repealed.
Sec. 7. [insert Bricker Amendment]
Sec. 8. [Insert Browne Amendment]
sec. 9. All Federal Revenues shall be collected exclusively in silver specie and Congress shall have the power to regulate its value for purpose of Federal taxation only.
Sec. 10. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is hereby abolished.
Sec. 11. State law involving intrastate bankruptcy shall supercede Federal bankruptcy law.


That takes the money out of it doesn't it?

Just asking🙂
Click to expand...

I got a cut and it's infected. Why don't I adopt the following solution:

1. Change the United States constitution to a Libertarian System.
2. Take antibiotics.

Pretty good plan, eh?
 
Matt1970 said:
How dare someone make money. We will tax the hell out of them and punish them, then give it away to the "less fortunate"............
Click to expand...

Heh. Remember how trickledown economics, Reaganomics, was supposed to benefit everybody? That a rising tide would lift all boats, so forth and so on? That regular guys would have it better under the new way of doing things than under the New Deal ways, that Growth, Growth, Growth! would shower prosperity down on all of us?

But wait! That's not what happened! The benefits of growth went straight to the top, and stayed there! The median family got... their big chance to buy into the fabulous Ownership Society! E-Z credit, and more of it! More governmental debt and now fewer services!

And the truly stupid among us got somebody to worship, to fawn over, to emulate & admire- The fabulously wealthy!

They're now so wealthy that they're turning away applicants begging to be chained to the oars of the luxury galley, the USS Free Enterprise!

"We don't need you- We've got plenty of wage slaves already! Get off my dock!"
 
Craig234 said:
This is why rather than a candidate, I support reform to the system so that such a candidate can get elected - a constitutional amendment against money in politics.
Click to expand...


I see this also as the only solution and I believe the real job for folk who want change is to educate the rest of America to understand our work will be to call a Constitutional Convention. It is the only way to take power back from the lock money has on government other than to burn it down. It is the only way that is legal, in other words. You will not get a third party candidate or a democrat or republican to represent you if he can only win an election with corporate money.

The chance for a third party, otherwise, seems remote to me.
 
Matt1970 said:
How dare someone make money. We will tax the hell out of them and punish them, then give it away to the "less fortunate"............
Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that the stagnation in income by the vast majority of the American public means that a consumer-driving recovery is essentially impossible, especially when you consider how much wealth was lost as a consequence of the housing crash.

Income is actually going down now for most Americans. And homeowners have taken a huge hit to their net worth. How, under these circumstances, do you expect the American economy to return to normal?

This isn't about "blaming the wealthy." This is a huge problem that needs fixing. Yet the "solutions" offered by the right are to cut spending, which will cause even higher unemployment among the bottom 90%. Can people really be so stupid that they think cutting spending is a solution to our sick economy?

In fact, if you look at Cain's 9-9-9 plan, the bottom 90% are going to be paying a lot more in taxes than the currently are. And the top 1% will be paying a lot less. If you want a sure recipe to destroy the U.S. economy, Cain's plan is a great start.

Our spending and deficits are a FUTURE problem, not the cause of our present economic trouble. Focusing on deficits is just a diversion, a demagogic ploy to distract attention. If you believe what right-wing leaders are telling you, you're a fool.
 
Matt1970 said:
How dare someone make money. We will tax the hell out of them and punish them, then give it away to the "less fortunate"............
Click to expand...

It's idiots like you who are included in the "less fortunate" that helps sustain egregious policies like this.
 
Craig234 said:
Having said that, Obama will be a lot less bad than any of the Republicans running. He's been terrible on reforming Wall Street, but there are other issues, and he's much more likely to support some helpful programs - like taxing the most wealthy more.
Click to expand...

If I were to use the word "terrible" in this context it would mean that a serious but incompetent attempt to fix the situation. The truth of the matter (and an inconvenient truth it is) is that the Democrats want what you've been complaining about as much as the Republicans, powerless individuals notwithstanding. Why? Because Obama as well as everyone else in the upcoming horse race is dependent on "the rich" to win elections and that is indisputable. So what will happen? Regardless of who you like you will vote for the same people, the same party, the same logic, that allows this to begin with. Moonbeam has suggested another means by which the stranglehold of the major parties might possibility be circumvented. While the chance of doing so is slim, it beats the nonexistent one of reformation of a system which has no need to chance. After all many including myself support change, however the vast majority do so by asking Marie Antoinette to reconsider her position on cake and leaving it at that.

The system at it's core is fundamentally flawed and will never be reformed. They have your vote and in the end that's all that counts. The last real attempt at getting around the status quo was Edwards (to whom I contributed). Why? Not because I supported everything he was for, but because IMO he was the last chance at least in my lifetime of getting someone that the mainstream parties didn't embrace. Instead we got "Company Man" Kerry, who was part of the institutionalized party system, and he did so by the support if his party AND those you say you don't like.

The root of the problem is that we have a choice and it's Hobson's.
 
Ausm said:
It's idiots like you who are included in the "less fortunate" that helps sustain egregious policies like this.
Click to expand...

Let me guess. If you vote you are going to pick someone from a party who either has no chance of winning or supports this trend. The fiction of "raising the taxes on the rich" has two flaws. First it does nothing to fix anything. Oh yes some of them will have less take home pay. Those would be the ones who earn income from their job directly. Those who do so by more creative means of compensation or who get their money from investments won't suffer and those happen to be the ones who aren't making 500k, but far far more, in other words those in power who support the party you are voting for. So we have a diversion in "tax the rich" who isn't going to for those who truly are, but worse this won't generate enough income to do anything constructive, nor will it do what is really necessary and that's the second point, generate jobs here. Not smoke and mirror programs, but a stable base which produces good paying jobs. What people support is getting even, nothing more.
 
Craig234 said:
We don't. It's changed radically. The downturn almost all Americans see is not 'the economy', it's the fraction of the top 1% taking the gains in the economy as it doubled.
Click to expand...

What? Are you kidding me? You're telling me that based off of this chart, you can determine that average/90% income percentage increase has slowed directly because CEO pay has increased? So, the slow economy is because CEO's are making too much money? lol.
 
CPA said:
What? Are you kidding me? You're telling me that based off of this chart, you can determine that average/90% income percentage increase has slowed directly because CEO pay has increased? So, the slow economy is because CEO's are making too much money? lol.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice "CEO" in what you quoted from Craig...
 
CPA said:
What? Are you kidding me? You're telling me that based off of this chart, you can determine that average/90% income percentage increase has slowed directly because CEO pay has increased? So, the slow economy is because CEO's are making too much money? lol.
Click to expand...

It may not be a cause but it's at least a reflection of who we are now. In my line of work the trend is to have fewer people do more work and that's not unique. That saves money and saving money translates into bonuses. Considering that cutting jobs has a built in financial reward one has to wonder.
 
This chart does not tell a story.

If I showed you a frame of a movie did I tell you a story? No.

You're trying to tell us a story, trying to convince us that this chart proves we need higher government redistribution of wealth.

The apparent village idiot though Anarchist420 (don't get discouraged friend!) is trying to tell a story that the system that we created has been redistributing this wealth. That doesn't fit with the reactionary policies that the OP endorses though.
 
momeNt said:
This chart does not tell a story.

If I showed you a frame of a movie did I tell you a story? No.

You're trying to tell us a story, trying to convince us that this chart proves we need higher government redistribution of wealth.

The apparent village idiot though Anarchist420 (don't get discouraged friend!) is trying to tell a story that the system that we created has been redistributing this wealth. That doesn't fit with the reactionary policies that the OP endorses though.
Click to expand...

Well, it's amusing to see a "conservative" claiming that a progressive is reactionary. Or are you claiming that the changes in income distribution over the last 30 years are actually some form of progress?

I think those changes are entirely reactionary, a return to the means, methods & results of the 1920's, with everything that follows along, including extreme economic instability.

It was the advent of the New Deal in the FDR years that provided the framework of shared prosperity of the post-WW2 era prior to Reagan, of policy that flattened the income curve, policy no longer in force today.

It's not like opportunity was stifled or that there were disincentives to work & innovation, either. Had we maintained the income distribution curve of 1980, the median family would be earning ~40% more, and the fabulously wealthy would still be... fabulously wealthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top