Has the republican perception of the income inequality crisis changed at all?

[Rikurzhen]

The booming economy had nothing to do with Clinton or the Republican Congress. Policy levers don't have that kind of effect.

The problems with employment and income inequality can't be fixed with policies, the fix needs to happen in the market, at a very fundamental level.

Like I said, a better economy means better wages. I don't agree that policies don't effect economies and I doubt many would either. Clinton's term did enjoy the dotcom bubble where people were getting filthy rich off of hot air. Policies allowed it to happen. The housing crash had the opposite effect, policies allowed it to happen.

Better economy = better wages. What's really going on is this: High Labor Demand = Better Wages. The two functions usually overlap. Look at corporate profits of late, record levels of profit, so doesn't that count as a good economy? Where are the better wages? They're not here because there isn't a lot of demand for labor.

I didn't say that polices don't have an effect, I wrote that they don't have that kind of effect. There is no lever that Washington can pull that will reduce income inequality with one policy. Change has to happen at the market level. Policies can help amplify the effect, but if the market is going one way, a policy can't create a different outcome by going in the other direction.

Clinton rode a good economy that was benefiting from deeper penetration of the inernet into all facets of commerce. The dot-com bubble was a stock market phenomenon.

The gains from internetization can come only once, then the economy is transformed to a new normal.

 

[Iceweasel]

Better economy = better wages. What's really going on is this: High Labor Demand = Better Wages. The two functions usually overlap. Look at corporate profits of late, record levels of profit, so doesn't that count as a good economy? Where are the better wages? They're not here because there isn't a lot of demand for labor.

Right. Low demand = lowerer wages. Corporate profits only benefit the economy if it gets bumped back into it by building, hiring, expanding, etc. They aren't doing so because of regulations, taxes and extra government imposed burdens, like health care. Which means they keep more of their money (higher profits).

I didn't say that polices don't have an effect, I wrote that they don't have that kind of effect. There is no lever that Washington can pull that will reduce income inequality with one policy. Change has to happen at the market level. Policies can help amplify the effect, but if the market is going one way, a policy can't create a different outcome by going in the other direction.

Clinton rode a good economy that was benefiting from deeper penetration of the inernet into all facets of commerce. The dot-com bubble was a stock market phenomenon.

The gains from internetization can come only once, then the economy is transformed to a new normal.

When the dotcom bubble busted we were in deep shit. I remember it well.

 

[BluesLegend]

We should be focused on creating new wealth not stealing wealth from those who have it to dole out to the have nots.

Exactly.

Did Apple's boom make society poorer?

Did Microsoft's innovations make society poorer?

Did the oil boom make society poorer?

Yeah, sure, these things made some people über-wealthy (and some have abused that wealth), but they generally increased the wealth of society.

Will anyone argue that society as a whole is less wealthy than 100 years ago? Relative wealth within society may be different, but we are as a whole much better off than we were. Who except the covetous among us care if someone else has more?

Increasing wealth on an absolute scale is about creating it, not redistributing it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Plus if you did confiscate

Republican don't care about income inequality. The GOP God Ronald Reagan is happy now with the success of his economic policies. Only he had it backwards. It is the trickle up policy that make him smile in his casket.

so how do you geniuses in the Dem. party plan to help this inequality?
how do you change it from happening

Punish those evil successful people and socialize oil, gas, and coal industries, and any other private sector cash cow they can get their hands on.

Read # 152

Post # 152 needs to focus on the root cause, namely idiot liberals and their tax and spend and regulation jobs killing idiocy. Followed closely by their education idiocy, their fomenting hate and division idiocy, and their irrational hatred of success and corporations idiocy.

Can you honestly say that when the GOP turns its back on Democratic requests to stop the many unwarranted tax breaks for the wealthy, oil companies, and corporations that take their companies off shore? The hypocrisy of the GOP is due to their dependence on the checks from special interest lobbyist who each have their hands in the pockets on the repub representatives.

What I will say is that you were told what to think and what to say by lying liberals and you obeyed.

 

[BluesLegend]

We should be focused on creating new wealth not stealing wealth from those who have it to dole out to the have nots.

Exactly.

Did Apple's boom make society poorer?

Did Microsoft's innovations make society poorer?

Did the oil boom make society poorer?

Yeah, sure, these things made some people über-wealthy (and some have abused that wealth), but they generally increased the wealth of society.

Will anyone argue that society as a whole is less wealthy than 100 years ago? Relative wealth within society may be different, but we are as a whole much better off than we were. Who except the covetous among us care if someone else has more?

Increasing wealth on an absolute scale is about creating it, not redistributing it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Plus if you did confiscate

Republican don't care about income inequality. The GOP God Ronald Reagan is happy now with the success of his economic policies. Only he had it backwards. It is the trickle up policy that make him smile in his casket.

so how do you geniuses in the Dem. party plan to help this inequality?
how do you change it from happening

Punish those evil successful people and socialize oil, gas, and coal industries, and any other private sector cash cow they can get their hands on.

Read # 152

Post # 152 needs to focus on the root cause, namely idiot liberals and their tax and spend and regulation jobs killing idiocy. Followed closely by their education idiocy, their fomenting hate and division idiocy, and their irrational hatred of success and corporations idiocy.

Can you honestly say that when the GOP turns its back on Democratic requests to stop the many unwarranted tax breaks for the wealthy, oil companies, and corporations that take their companies off shore? The hypocrisy of the GOP is due to their dependence on the checks from special interest lobbyist who each have their hands in the pockets on the repub representatives.

What are the tax breaks for taking your company offshore? I keep seeing libs post this nonsense, but I have yet to see any specifics. Can you post some details about actual tax regulations?

They can't, this is just another stupid liberal talking point to foment division and throw red meat to their base. The war on women the war on minorities the war on fill in the blank. The liberal drones slurp this up then parrot it until the uninformed masses start thinking its true. It matters not how many facts you shove in their face they keep right on parroting the talking points.

 

[francoHFW]

Hilarious- see sig for facts, thanks Pub a-holes and dupes....

 

[francoHFW]

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 5 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[francoHFW]

Just a liberal talking point, hunh, dupes?

 

[francoHFW]

Right? lol

 

[hadit]

Just a liberal talking point, hunh, dupes?

It is when you consider that the liberals ranting on about it only ever mention Republican presidents when they do. Somehow, Clinton, Obama, and the numerous democrat controlled Congress' never get mentioned, even though, as POTUS now, Obama is responsible for the situation. Why do you think that is?