Democrats have nothing to offer Americans but division; race and class warfare

[bedowin62]

Jeb bush is a moron neo-con who wants to expand his brother's disaster.

And we hear the voice of ignorance and stupidity once more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/u...an-is-a-large-tax-cut-for-the-wealthiest.html

A version of this article appears in print on September 11, 2015, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Bush’s Plan Gives to the Poor and the Rich]

lol.
Pwned again.

LOL. Sure it does.
A tax plan that disproportionately favors the wealthy and would cause their to have to be gutted social services to pay off the rich and their tax breaks.

Spot On!!!
This shit started when Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy to pre depression levels, never cut spending a goddam dime thereby borrowing $3 trillion from foreign banks and effectively handing it to the richest people in this country. Rich people used to pay their way. Now...they're freeloaders.

Look closely at the 1% line after Clinton's two terms and just before Bush cut taxes for the rich twice:

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

here's what none of your charts say........................................

UNDER PROGRESSIVES THE VERY RICHEST GOT RICHER AND THE POOREST GOT POORER

both got richer and poorer AT A FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA/PROGRESSIVES then they were getting under Bush and Republicans


libs are losers who lie......... TO THEMSELVES

 

[Campbell]

LOL. How much taxable income do you think the bottom 40% takes in? How much wealth do you think they own? Making the bottom 40% pay more taxes is spitting on them for no reason, and it wouldn't make a difference at all.

They have lots of taxable income, dumbshit. Because there are lots of them. Again you confuse income and wealth, because you're an ignoramus. They dont pay ANY taxes. In fact they get back more than they pay in. If they're going to benefit from this country and all it offers shouldnt they be paying something? You scream about big corporations not paying their fair share, what about the freeloading bottom 40% of wage earners?

How much income do they take in compared to the other 60%?
Do some basic math.
An Economic Cancer: The Top 1% Earns More Than the Bottom 50%
Income Inequality | Inequality.org
The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution.[4] U.S. federal tax and transfer policies are progressive and therefore reduce income inequality measured after taxes and transfers.[5] Tax and transfer policies together reduced income inequality slightly more in 2011 than in 1979.[1]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928
"
In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.

But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).
"

Maybe learn to not resent successful people so much.

This has nothing to do with resenting successful people, these are facts that you are free to look at. Trickle down garbage doesn't work, never has.
"But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise)."
Suck on that.

You realize the problems you mention have accelerated under Obama and his policies? You know that right? Now you are saying the problem is a result of "trickle down" economics. Funny.....but that is a term from the 1980's.

Are you saying Obama's economic policies are "trickle down" economics? What exactly are you saying and why has the problem accelerated under Obama?

DUUHH!! It's the stock market and 5.1% unemployment. Look at your history books....the economy has always done better during Democrat administrations. Tax Cuts for the wealthy(by Republican administrations) is the cause of the rich getting richer.

 

[jillian]

And we hear the voice of ignorance and stupidity once more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/u...an-is-a-large-tax-cut-for-the-wealthiest.html

A version of this article appears in print on September 11, 2015, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Bush’s Plan Gives to the Poor and the Rich]

lol.
Pwned again.

LOL. Sure it does.
A tax plan that disproportionately favors the wealthy and would cause their to have to be gutted social services to pay off the rich and their tax breaks.

That wasnt even coherent.
Since the top 40% of taxpayers pay virtually all income tax it is no surprise that a cut in income taxes would benefit them.
We need to raise taxes on the bottom 40% so they actually pay something.

LOL. How much taxable income do you think the bottom 40% takes in? How much wealth do you think they own? Making the bottom 40% pay more taxes is spitting on them for no reason, and it wouldn't make a difference at all.

but it makes disgusting people feel better about themselves.

the funny thing is that the ones ranting most are the ones who are most affected by it. the idiots don't even understand that they vote against their own interests. brainwashed loons.

 

[jillian]

And we hear the voice of ignorance and stupidity once more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/u...an-is-a-large-tax-cut-for-the-wealthiest.html

A version of this article appears in print on September 11, 2015, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Bush’s Plan Gives to the Poor and the Rich]

lol.
Pwned again.

LOL. Sure it does.
A tax plan that disproportionately favors the wealthy and would cause their to have to be gutted social services to pay off the rich and their tax breaks.

Spot On!!!
This shit started when Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy to pre depression levels, never cut spending a goddam dime thereby borrowing $3 trillion from foreign banks and effectively handing it to the richest people in this country. Rich people used to pay their way. Now...they're freeloaders.

Look closely at the 1% line after Clinton's two terms and just before Bush cut taxes for the rich twice:

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

here's what none of your charts say........................................

UNDER PROGRESSIVES THE VERY RICHEST GOT RICHER AND THE POOREST GOT POORER

both got richer and poorer AT A FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA/PROGRESSIVES then they were getting under Bush and Republicans


libs are losers who lie......... TO THEMSELVES

correlation is not causation, loser.

can you say sequester? sure... i knew you could.

imbecile.

 

[bedowin62]

there are record amounts of WORKING-AGE and ABLE-BODIED Americans not participating in the labor market
obama's unemployment number is a JOKE; and the most disgusting losers are people too brainwashed and ignorant to think for themselve and admit the truth

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/u...an-is-a-large-tax-cut-for-the-wealthiest.html

A version of this article appears in print on September 11, 2015, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Bush’s Plan Gives to the Poor and the Rich]

lol.
Pwned again.

LOL. Sure it does.
A tax plan that disproportionately favors the wealthy and would cause their to have to be gutted social services to pay off the rich and their tax breaks.

Spot On!!!
This shit started when Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy to pre depression levels, never cut spending a goddam dime thereby borrowing $3 trillion from foreign banks and effectively handing it to the richest people in this country. Rich people used to pay their way. Now...they're freeloaders.

Look closely at the 1% line after Clinton's two terms and just before Bush cut taxes for the rich twice:

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

here's what none of your charts say........................................

UNDER PROGRESSIVES THE VERY RICHEST GOT RICHER AND THE POOREST GOT POORER

both got richer and poorer AT A FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA/PROGRESSIVES then they were getting under Bush and Republicans


libs are losers who lie......... TO THEMSELVES

correlation is not causation, loser.

can you say sequester? sure... i knew you could.

imbecile.

correlation is not causation

and more pathetic excuses

just like 9-11; WHOSE WATCH IS IT STUPID???

LOL what an idiot!!

 

[bedowin62]

we went over this already idiot

let's talk about who votes against their own interests ok??

 

[Campbell]

The left also uses selective morality. Example: The global warming shit is a moral outrage, but "crunching" babies and selling their organs is "a woman's right to choose."

Funny they're too stupid to see the idiocy of argument.

I have a question for you. When you see a neighbor lady take a strange man into her house. Do you worry as much about that as you seem to worry about other people's business here? Get A Life And STFU!!

well if you saw her go in there then you a nosy loser too dummy.

go cry

LOL....Right Winger's logic. What do you do put a mask over your eyes any time you walk outside. It Ain't A Damn Bit Of Your Business Who some strange lady fucks. It ain't a Damn bit of your business if she gets pregnant and it damn sure isn't any of your business what she and her doctor decide to do about the pregnancy!!

 

[bedowin62]

NAACP president: Black people worse off under Obama ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../naacp-president-bl...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
Jan 28, 2013 - NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous said Sunday that black Americans “are doing a full point worse” than when President Obama ...

 

[bedowin62]

Black People Worse Off Under Obama - Huffington Post
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../naacp-president-benja...

• Cached
• Similar

The Huffington Post
Loading...
Jan 29, 2013 - NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous said Sunday, perhaps unwittingly, that black Americans “are doing far worse” than when ...

 

[bedowin62]

Obama economy: Welfare dependency peaks as rich get ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-economy-...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
Jan 4, 2015 - “They get their masters degrees in useless areas, and they're still ... that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Obama economic ...

 

[bedowin62]

It's not just you: Americans are actually still getting poorer ...
www.washingtonpost.com/.../its-not-just-you-america...
The Washington Post
Loading...
Apr 3, 2015 - Rich get richer, but taxes take a bite ... The rich are still getting richer, and the poor are still getting poorer, federal data released Thursday ...

 

[guno]

Obama economy: Welfare dependency peaks as rich get ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-economy-...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
Jan 4, 2015 - “They get their masters degrees in useless areas, and they're still ... that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Obama economic ...

Maybe if you had gotten an education and ditched that lunatic religion of yours, you wouldn't have to whine about people who have education.

Face it cletus, the jobs you used to have like the jobs at goobers rubber band factory are gone and not coming back

 

[The Rabbi]

That wasnt even coherent.
Since the top 40% of taxpayers pay virtually all income tax it is no surprise that a cut in income taxes would benefit them.
We need to raise taxes on the bottom 40% so they actually pay something.

LOL. How much taxable income do you think the bottom 40% takes in? How much wealth do you think they own? Making the bottom 40% pay more taxes is spitting on them for no reason, and it wouldn't make a difference at all.

They have lots of taxable income, dumbshit. Because there are lots of them. Again you confuse income and wealth, because you're an ignoramus. They dont pay ANY taxes. In fact they get back more than they pay in. If they're going to benefit from this country and all it offers shouldnt they be paying something? You scream about big corporations not paying their fair share, what about the freeloading bottom 40% of wage earners?

How much income do they take in compared to the other 60%?
Do some basic math.
An Economic Cancer: The Top 1% Earns More Than the Bottom 50%
Income Inequality | Inequality.org
The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution.[4] U.S. federal tax and transfer policies are progressive and therefore reduce income inequality measured after taxes and transfers.[5] Tax and transfer policies together reduced income inequality slightly more in 2011 than in 1979.[1]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928
"
In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.

But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).
"

So the bottom 40% shouldnt pay anything? Does that sound fair to you?

Oh, but they do pay taxes, it's just their income is so little that raising taxes on them would just push them down even more.

No they do not pay income taxes. QUit moving goalposts.

 

[bedowin62]

Obama economy: Welfare dependency peaks as rich get ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-economy-...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
Jan 4, 2015 - “They get their masters degrees in useless areas, and they're still ... that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Obama economic ...

Maybe if you had gotten an education and ditched that lunatic religion of yours, you wouldn't have to whine about people who have education.

Face it cletus, the jobs you used to have like the jobs at goobers rubber band factory are gone and not coming back

what are you babbling about leftard? you're a joke; and you know it

you dont know what religion, if any i have, or what kind of job i have.
you're just making a fool of yourself

 

[The Rabbi]

That wasnt even coherent.
Since the top 40% of taxpayers pay virtually all income tax it is no surprise that a cut in income taxes would benefit them.
We need to raise taxes on the bottom 40% so they actually pay something.

LOL. How much taxable income do you think the bottom 40% takes in? How much wealth do you think they own? Making the bottom 40% pay more taxes is spitting on them for no reason, and it wouldn't make a difference at all.

They have lots of taxable income, dumbshit. Because there are lots of them. Again you confuse income and wealth, because you're an ignoramus. They dont pay ANY taxes. In fact they get back more than they pay in. If they're going to benefit from this country and all it offers shouldnt they be paying something? You scream about big corporations not paying their fair share, what about the freeloading bottom 40% of wage earners?

How much income do they take in compared to the other 60%?
Do some basic math.
An Economic Cancer: The Top 1% Earns More Than the Bottom 50%
Income Inequality | Inequality.org
The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution.[4] U.S. federal tax and transfer policies are progressive and therefore reduce income inequality measured after taxes and transfers.[5] Tax and transfer policies together reduced income inequality slightly more in 2011 than in 1979.[1]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928
"
In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.

But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).
"

Maybe learn to not resent successful people so much.

This has nothing to do with resenting successful people, these are facts that you are free to look at. Trickle down garbage doesn't work, never has.
"But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise)."
Suck on that.

Yes all those greedy rich people sucking up this country's money. Pretty soon there will be no wealth left!
And people actually believe that.

 

[The Rabbi]

You start a divisive thread stating that the only thing democrats have to offer is divisiveness.....


How ironic!

As far as I can figure, the conservative rightwingers on this board are completely oblivious regarding their own shortcomings, of which there are a great many. Completely unaware.

Irony!

 

[The Rabbi]

They have lots of taxable income, dumbshit. Because there are lots of them. Again you confuse income and wealth, because you're an ignoramus. They dont pay ANY taxes. In fact they get back more than they pay in. If they're going to benefit from this country and all it offers shouldnt they be paying something? You scream about big corporations not paying their fair share, what about the freeloading bottom 40% of wage earners?

How much income do they take in compared to the other 60%?
Do some basic math.
An Economic Cancer: The Top 1% Earns More Than the Bottom 50%
Income Inequality | Inequality.org
The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution.[4] U.S. federal tax and transfer policies are progressive and therefore reduce income inequality measured after taxes and transfers.[5] Tax and transfer policies together reduced income inequality slightly more in 2011 than in 1979.[1]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928
"
In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.

But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).
"

Maybe learn to not resent successful people so much.

This has nothing to do with resenting successful people, these are facts that you are free to look at. Trickle down garbage doesn't work, never has.
"But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise)."
Suck on that.

You realize the problems you mention have accelerated under Obama and his policies? You know that right? Now you are saying the problem is a result of "trickle down" economics. Funny.....but that is a term from the 1980's.

Are you saying Obama's economic policies are "trickle down" economics? What exactly are you saying and why has the problem accelerated under Obama?

You do realize, that bush took office in 2008, almost right when bush dumped the recession on him. We are recovering better then most countries, Obama has tried to raise taxes to alleviate inequality, he has tried to help small businesses, conservatives aren't letting him, or forcing him to make ridiculous compromises. Conservatives don't want to bring home jobs, they don't want to help veterans. His policies aren't trickle down economics, but great job trying to spew idiocy.

Wow, blind much?
Household income was higher the day Bush left office than it is today after 8 years of Democrat policies. Teh debt is 80% higher today than the day Bush left office. Dependence on gov't programs is higher today than the day Bush left office. No, we arent recovering better than other countries. The opposite in fact.
There is no such thing as "trickle down economics." You couldnt even define it.

 

[The Rabbi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/u...an-is-a-large-tax-cut-for-the-wealthiest.html

A version of this article appears in print on September 11, 2015, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Bush’s Plan Gives to the Poor and the Rich]

lol.
Pwned again.

LOL. Sure it does.
A tax plan that disproportionately favors the wealthy and would cause their to have to be gutted social services to pay off the rich and their tax breaks.

Spot On!!!
This shit started when Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy to pre depression levels, never cut spending a goddam dime thereby borrowing $3 trillion from foreign banks and effectively handing it to the richest people in this country. Rich people used to pay their way. Now...they're freeloaders.

Look closely at the 1% line after Clinton's two terms and just before Bush cut taxes for the rich twice:

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

here's what none of your charts say........................................

UNDER PROGRESSIVES THE VERY RICHEST GOT RICHER AND THE POOREST GOT POORER

both got richer and poorer AT A FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA/PROGRESSIVES then they were getting under Bush and Republicans


libs are losers who lie......... TO THEMSELVES

correlation is not causation, loser.

can you say sequester? sure... i knew you could.

imbecile.

So Democrats enacted a bunch of policies that were ineffective?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How much income do they take in compared to the other 60%?
Do some basic math.
An Economic Cancer: The Top 1% Earns More Than the Bottom 50%
Income Inequality | Inequality.org
The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution.[4] U.S. federal tax and transfer policies are progressive and therefore reduce income inequality measured after taxes and transfers.[5] Tax and transfer policies together reduced income inequality slightly more in 2011 than in 1979.[1]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928
"
In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.

But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).
"

Maybe learn to not resent successful people so much.

This has nothing to do with resenting successful people, these are facts that you are free to look at. Trickle down garbage doesn't work, never has.
"But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise)."
Suck on that.

You realize the problems you mention have accelerated under Obama and his policies? You know that right? Now you are saying the problem is a result of "trickle down" economics. Funny.....but that is a term from the 1980's.

Are you saying Obama's economic policies are "trickle down" economics? What exactly are you saying and why has the problem accelerated under Obama?

You do realize, that bush took office in 2008, almost right when bush dumped the recession on him. We are recovering better then most countries, Obama has tried to raise taxes to alleviate inequality, he has tried to help small businesses, conservatives aren't letting him, or forcing him to make ridiculous compromises. Conservatives don't want to bring home jobs, they don't want to help veterans. His policies aren't trickle down economics, but great job trying to spew idiocy.

Wow, blind much?
Household income was higher the day Bush left office than it is today after 8 years of Democrat policies. Teh debt is 80% higher today than the day Bush left office. Dependence on gov't programs is higher today than the day Bush left office. No, we arent recovering better than other countries. The opposite in fact.
There is no such thing as "trickle down economics." You couldnt even define it.

Yes the damage done by Bush has ravaged America long after his presidency ended.