Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stopping credit card companies from jacking up your rates on things you had already purchased helps in the sense that it gives consumers more with which to consume and might allow them to stay out of bankruptcy a little longer if they have a disruption in income.
Stopping credit card companies from jacking up your rates on things you had already purchased helps in the sense that it gives consumers more with which to consume and might allow them to stay out of bankruptcy a little longer if they have a disruption in income.
thats the best thing you can think of that a liberal would do to help the economy!!
Compare that to driving 50 million jobs offshore with the highest most liberal tax rates in the world ?
Stopping credit card companies from jacking up your rates on things you had already purchased helps in the sense that it gives consumers more with which to consume and might allow them to stay out of bankruptcy a little longer if they have a disruption in income.
thats the best thing you can think of that a liberal would do to help the economy!!
Compare that to driving 50 million jobs offshore with the highest most liberal tax rates in the world ?
You were asking the poster to name "one" and I named "one". Stop pretending that you asked something different than you did.
thats the best thing you can think of that a liberal would do to help the economy!!
Compare that to driving 50 million jobs offshore with the highest most liberal tax rates in the world ?
You were asking the poster to name "one" and I named "one". Stop pretending that you asked something different than you did.
yes you named one but it was so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. If thats the only thing they did to end the greatest recession since the Great Depression you must be very very slow indeed.
If by shrinking the middle class by putting more of them into poverty, and decreasing prosperity is what you mean about Reagan, then I agree Reagan achieved those goals.Reagan was the greatest but raising taxes a dozen times or so is not really supply side and exploding deficits are not really conservative. Lets not forget that a Republican president often will have to compromise with the party opposite so what you get is a compromise.
Were taxes higher or lower after Reagan left office?
Yeah, the Left has been fixated on demand for like 70 years, trying to dream up ways to stimulate demand. Reagan changed that, arguing successfully that if you stimulate supply, i.e. incentives to work and produce, then demand will take care of itself. Reagan was right, the Left was wrong.
You were asking the poster to name "one" and I named "one". Stop pretending that you asked something different than you did.
yes you named one but it was so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. If thats the only thing they did to end the greatest recession since the Great Depression you must be very very slow indeed.
You asked for one. I gave you one. You however keep trying to move the goal post. Slow? No. Easily Baited? Not this time.
In the wake of the Bush/GOP housing bubble bursting into the Great Recession, we're doing far better under Obama than if we had elected McCain or Romney. And the economy is coming back under Obama, I spite of the GOP obstructing recovery.If by shrinking the middle class by putting more of them into poverty, and decreasing prosperity is what you mean about Reagan, then I agree Reagan achieved those goals.
Obama is doing a better job at dropping incomes and increasing poverty than Reagan. Isn't it awful?
yes you named one but it was so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. If thats the only thing they did to end the greatest recession since the Great Depression you must be very very slow indeed.
You asked for one. I gave you one. You however keep trying to move the goal post. Slow? No. Easily Baited? Not this time.
Ed is right. Your "program" is stupid and sucks and wouldnt work anyway. Why do you think credit card companies do that? And I havent checked regs from Dodd Frank but it wouldnt surprise me if that's already illegal.
Not when you have a republican House and a senate with the ability of the repubs to filibuster. Please let me know when you find out what the gop economic plan is. But at least you admit he was the dumbest president.The smartest President ever can't fix the screw ups of the dumbest President ever in less than 6 years? I guess he's not as smart as was claimed.
Coming back??? Yes, I would say so. You may want to take a look at GDP, and corporate sales and profits, me boy.And the economy is coming back under Obama,
Absolutely, just look at how much lower unemployment is than during Bush's 8 years. Oh, wait.
Well at least we have fewer on foodstamps than during Bush's 8 years. Oh, wait.
One quarter??? Really, toddster. Why do they say such a thing happened, me boy??Economy?s stumble in first quarter historic - Economic Report - MarketWatch
Sentier Research??? Funny, me boy, you did not provide a link. Odd, eh. Could you be hiding something, me con tool. What has happened during the time since the great republican recession of 2008 is that incomes of the poor, up to 90%, have been very flat, Abive 90% they have increased. And the upper 1% and higher have gone up a great deal. Income distribution has been very much an increase to the wealthy.Oh, wait.
At least incomes have recovered.
My goodness, toddster. So much misleading and untrue information in one post:
In the wake of the Bush/GOP housing bubble bursting into the Great Recession
Not when you have a republican House and a senate with the ability of the repubs to filibuster. Please let me know when you find out what the gop economic plan is. But at least you admit he was the dumbest president.The smartest President ever can't fix the screw ups of the dumbest President ever in less than 6 years? I guess he's not as smart as was claimed.
Coming back??? Yes, I would say so. You may want to take a look at GDP, and corporate sales and profits, me boy.And the economy is coming back under Obama,
Now, now, Toddster. you seem to forget that your friend, W, took over an economy that was at about 5% by the end of the budget year for his predecessor. By the time he left, it was passing 7.8% on the way to 10.2% during his final budget month. And then there is the fact that by september of 2008, W's economy was loosing about 500,000 jobs per month, which increased to over 800,000 jobs per month lost by January 2009, W's final month in office. Started back down then, no thanks at all to the repubs who voted against every plan the new pres brought forward, and stopped them all except for the initial stimulus plan.
So, W increased jobs during his 8 years by less than any president since wwii, me boy. Not much of a plan.
I know you are stupid, but you may be interested in knowing that food stamps increase with unemployment. And, me boy, no one produced more job losses than W.
At least we have a strong economy this year.
One quarter??? Really, toddster. Why do they say such a thing happened, me boy??Economy?s stumble in first quarter historic - Economic Report - MarketWatch
"The chief reason: Americans spent less than originally assumed, mainly on health care."
From your source. So, your source says the main reason for the one quarter decrease in growth was due primarily to less spending on healthcare. Which is exactly the opposite of what you have always said would happen. Damned obamacare. We need to pay more for healthcare, eh me boy??
Sentier Research??? Funny, me boy, you did not provide a link. Odd, eh. Could you be hiding something, me con tool. What has happened during the time since the great republican recession of 2008 is that incomes of the poor, up to 90%, have been very flat, Abive 90% they have increased. And the upper 1% and higher have gone up a great deal. Income distribution has been very much an increase to the wealthy.Oh, wait.
At least incomes have recovered.
Did you have a point??
Sentier Research??? Funny, me boy, you did not provide a link. Odd, eh. Could you be hiding something,
Never suggested it was a right wing source. Dipshit. It is simply that you are a con tool which means you are a liar. You are posting something that is what economists who are not tools have been concerned about for several decades. Which is that the distribution of income is moving faster and faster toward the very wealthy. Which is no problem for you. In fact, you probably like it. But actual economists recognize it as a very real problem.Sentier Research??? Funny, me boy, you did not provide a link. Odd, eh. Could you be hiding something,
Back in 2007, median household income was $55,438. That's declined to $51,404 in February 2013.
Chart: Median household incomes have collapsed since the recession - The Washington Post
Must be my right-wing source.
4) It's also worth pointing out that median household incomes stagnated all through the 2000s, even before the recession. The typical household wasn't getting any richer even back when unemployment was low. Rampell points to an old post by David Leonhardt offering up 14 possible reasons for the income slump. It's worth reading.
Then why haven't they decreased, with all Obama's new employment and GDP?
If jobs are above Bush levels, food stamps should be below Bush levels.
Never suggested it was a right wing source. Dipshit. It is simply that you are a con tool which means you are a liar. You are posting something that is what economists who are not tools have been concerned about for several decades. Which is that the distribution of income is moving faster and faster toward the very wealthy. Which is no problem for you. In fact, you probably like it. But actual economists recognize it as a very real problem.Sentier Research??? Funny, me boy, you did not provide a link. Odd, eh. Could you be hiding something,
Back in 2007, median household income was $55,438. That's declined to $51,404 in February 2013.
Chart: Median household incomes have collapsed since the recession - The Washington Post
Must be my right-wing source.
You forgot to mention the following from your source:
4) It's also worth pointing out that median household incomes stagnated all through the 2000s, even before the recession. The typical household wasn't getting any richer even back when unemployment was low. Rampell points to an old post by David Leonhardt offering up 14 possible reasons for the income slump. It's worth reading.
So, I know what your attempt is, which is to assume that folks will see your chart showing median numbers, and think they are average, or actually mean, numbers. So, lets clear up what you are showing:
"The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers."
So, if you take all of the earnings of everyone in the sample (the us, in your case) and find the middle number, you have the mean. Which, of course, as you well know, makes your number meaningless for showing average salaries. What it does show, of course, since it has decreased, is what economists have been saying, and what I have been telling YOU. Which is that wages for 90% of the population have been decreasing, while those for the upper 10% have been INCREASING. In other words, again, income is being redistributed to the wealthy from the lower 89%.
"Not everyone has experienced a drop in income, however. As AllGov reported in July, a study from Northeastern University found that corporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1 percent of growth since the recovery began in 2009. Corporations are posting record profits, while investors, who are disproportionately wealthy already, are earning large capital gains that are taxed at special low rates, leading to greater inequality and even slower economic growth."
Top Stories - Average U.S. Household Has Lost 5% in Annual Income Since Economic ?Recovery? Began - AllGov - News
Nice to see that you see income inequality as a problem. That would have to be a change in your mindset, me boy.
So, the toddster looks for more education:
Then why haven't they decreased, with all Obama's new employment and GDP?
If jobs are above Bush levels, food stamps should be below Bush levels.
Your questions are way too easy, me boy. most would be able to answer them for themselves. i am going to have to start charging you for answering dumb questions, which these are:
Perhaps you would like to explain why, since increases in gdp are going almost entirely to the wealthy and corporations, that there would be any decrease in food assistance. . Did you expect those groups would be applying for food stamps, me boy? The problem is, of course, more complex than cons are likely to be able to deal with. But try to understand. Inflation along with lower pay for the lower 89% of workers means they have less money to spend on food. And, since we know that cons, like you, me boy, would prefer that kids starve, the rest of us push for food assistance. However, even with the concerted efforts of the republican congress to destroy the economy, food stamp recipients are decreasing in number.
Food stamp requirements did not start untill the economy received the full effect of the Great Republican Recession.
No, you have the median....as many people above that number as below.So, I know what your attempt is, which is to assume that folks will see your chart showing median numbers, and think they are average, or actually mean, numbers. So, lets clear up what you are showing:
"The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers."
So, if you take all of the earnings of everyone in the sample (the us, in your case) and find the middle number, you have the mean.
Wrong. The median is preferred for things like income and home values and other things where distribution won't be even.Which, of course, as you well know, makes your number meaningless for showing average salaries.
It shows nothing of the sort. You'd have to look at the deciles to know that.What it does show, of course, since it has decreased, is what economists have been saying, and what I have been telling YOU. Which is that wages for 90% of the population have been decreasing, while those for the upper 10% have been INCREASING. In other words, again, income is being redistributed to the wealthy from the lower 89%.
No, you have the median....as many people above that number as below.So, I know what your attempt is, which is to assume that folks will see your chart showing median numbers, and think they are average, or actually mean, numbers. So, lets clear up what you are showing:
"The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers."
So, if you take all of the earnings of everyone in the sample (the us, in your case) and find the middle number, you have the mean.
Wrong. The median is preferred for things like income and home values and other things where distribution won't be even.Which, of course, as you well know, makes your number meaningless for showing average salaries.
For example...fast food restaurant: 6 employees making $7.25/hr, 2 making $8/hr, one making $8.75, 3 making $9.25, 3 supervisors making $15, an assistant manager making $25/hr and franchise owner making $40/hr. The mean would be $12.12/hr while the median would be $8.75 (and the mode would be $7.25).
Which do you think more accurately represents the distribution of the company?
It shows nothing of the sort. You'd have to look at the deciles to know that.What it does show, of course, since it has decreased, is what economists have been saying, and what I have been telling YOU. Which is that wages for 90% of the population have been decreasing, while those for the upper 10% have been INCREASING. In other words, again, income is being redistributed to the wealthy from the lower 89%.
Math isn't his strongest area. Or thinking.
Math isn't his strongest area. Or thinking.
So I shouldn't start throwing in the geometric mean or harmonic mean?
To know exactly, yes. But the fact that tne median is lower indicates that the distribution is likely to the more wealthy, away from the middle class and lower.No, you have the median....as many people above that number as below.So, I know what your attempt is, which is to assume that folks will see your chart showing median numbers, and think they are average, or actually mean, numbers. So, lets clear up what you are showing:
"The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers."
So, if you take all of the earnings of everyone in the sample (the us, in your case) and find the middle number, you have the mean.
Wrong. The median is preferred for things like income and home values and other things where distribution won't be even.
For example...fast food restaurant: 6 employees making $7.25/hr, 2 making $8/hr, one making $8.75, 3 making $9.25, 3 supervisors making $15, an assistant manager making $25/hr and franchise owner making $40/hr. The mean would be $12.12/hr while the median would be $8.75 (and the mode would be $7.25).
Which do you think more accurately represents the distribution of the company?
It shows nothing of the sort. You'd have to look at the deciles to know that.What it does show, of course, since it has decreased, is what economists have been saying, and what I have been telling YOU. Which is that wages for 90% of the population have been decreasing, while those for the upper 10% have been INCREASING. In other words, again, income is being redistributed to the wealthy from the lower 89%.
Math isn't his strongest area. Or thinking.
