A comparison of the Reagan and Obama recoveries

[bripat9643]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

 

[danielpalos]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Right.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20]

Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21]

However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%.

The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21]

During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

-- Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Righta

Democrats are losers no matter how you slice it, eh?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Right.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. -- Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's proof positive that everyone who voted for Obama is a sucker.

 

[danielpalos]

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Righta

Democrats are losers no matter how you slice it, eh?

only when Capitalism is Useless to the Right.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Right.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. -- Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's proof positive that everyone who voted for Obama is a sucker.

There is an embargo on honest Injeun continents on the Right due to their excessive bifurcation on any given morally absolute issue.

 

[william the wie]

given how stupid their base is isn't that a given?

 

[danielpalos]

given how stupid their base is isn't that a given?

it does help the Right appeal to ignorance of our supreme laws of the land in favor of morals from the Age of Iron.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Right.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. -- Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's proof positive that everyone who voted for Obama is a sucker.

Thanks for self identifying.

 

[bripat9643]

given how stupid their base is isn't that a given?

Yes.

 

[Agit8r]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

Since the maker of graphic can't spell, I doubt the math as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no comparison. Millions of good paying jobs have disappeared between Reagan and Obama.

 

[kaz]

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Righta

Democrats are losers no matter how you slice it, eh?

only when Capitalism is Useless to the Right.

You really need to learn to translate Canadian into American before you post because you don't make any sense

 

[danielpalos]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Right.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. -- Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's proof positive that everyone who voted for Obama is a sucker.

Thanks for self identifying.

How do you believe I "Eureka-ed!" my clues and and my Causes.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

Since the maker of graphic can't spell, I doubt the math as well.

supply side economics really does mean bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down; to the Right.

 

[Meathead]

There's no comparison. Millions of good paying jobs have disappeared between Reagan and Obama.

Huh? The economy took off under Reagan and he set the table for two decade of wealth. Obama at best has a stagnant economy after more than 6 years.

There is no comparison, you're right.

 

[danielpalos]

There's no comparison. Millions of good paying jobs have disappeared between Reagan and Obama.

There is no excuse for not adhering to public Standards as those public laws; since, it can be considered a willful appeal to ignorance of the law on the part of the public sector; and, potentially, that form of moral turpitude, in that very serious alternative.

I believe we need to enjoin our lawmakers to ensure our infrastructure meets that public Standard expected of the several citizens in any several and sovereign State.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see how anyone can argue with this:

Since the maker of graphic can't spell, I doubt the math as well.

Prove it wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no comparison. Millions of good paying jobs have disappeared between Reagan and Obama.

They disappeared under the reign of Obama, not Reagan.

 

[danielpalos]

It seems like proof positive, that supply side economics merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down To The Righta

Democrats are losers no matter how you slice it, eh?

only when Capitalism is Useless to the Right.

You really need to learn to translate Canadian into American before you post because you don't make any sense

are you upset because Canadian women can be more honest for sex than women with a McCarthy era phrase in their pledge of allegiance and most definitely not, any form of infidel-ism, protestant-ism, nor any renegade-ism to a god through that form of the abomination of hypocrisy.