Obama's Legacy: richest got richer and poorest got poorer faster than under Bush/Republicans

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12771426

.....Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

More productive than ever? Then what is your explanation behind the median family income lower than when DumBama took office? What is your explanation behind having the most American people not working since the mid 70's? What is your explanation behind our record poverty levels and government dependency?

When I was younger, people did work harder than ever. In many cases I had two jobs, and I was not alone. Many of my friends and family did the same. How many people today do you know with two or more jobs? No need to. There are expanded socialized programs to make up the wage indifference.

The Clinton success story is twofold: Clinton presided with a Republican Congress for the first time in over 40 years. He was President during the tech bubble which burst at the end of his second term. It had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. If anything, it might have been due to Welfare Reform pushed by the Republican Congress.

Possibly the same Reaganist disaster that has lasted over 30 years? DUH

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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

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

Oh quit blaming Reagan for the actions of Democrats with their never ending regulations against companies, taxation which is now 39% for corporations, unions which chased all the jobs out of the country, and NAFTA that your beloved President Clinton signed.

Only a liberal would dig up a dead body from years ago and blame it for the incompetence of their own leaders today.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ray 12771426

.....Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

More productive than ever? Then what is your explanation behind the median family income lower than when DumBama took office? What is your explanation behind having the most American people not working since the mid 70's? What is your explanation behind our record poverty levels and government dependency?

When I was younger, people did work harder than ever. In many cases I had two jobs, and I was not alone. Many of my friends and family did the same. How many people today do you know with two or more jobs? No need to. There are expanded socialized programs to make up the wage indifference.

The Clinton success story is twofold: Clinton presided with a Republican Congress for the first time in over 40 years. He was President during the tech bubble which burst at the end of his second term. It had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. If anything, it might have been due to Welfare Reform pushed by the Republican Congress.

NotFooled lives in an alt universe where everything under Obama is hunky-dory. And if it isnt it must be Bush's fault. Or the Republicans. Or the Tea Party. Or the Koch Brothers.
There is no arguing with this level of delusion and ignorance. One can only ignore it or scoff at it.

 

[rightwinger]

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

Once again demonstrating that you are completely culturally illiterate

The other kids used to make fun of you didn't they?

 

[The Rabbi]

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

Once again demonstrating that you are completely culturally illiterate

The other kids used to make fun of you didn't they?

And when shown up Rightwinger defaults to cartoons, internet memes, snark and insults.
It's really all you have when you've failed on facts and logic.
Better luck today, Rightwinger. Although your lack of knowledge and education will doom you yet again.

 

[rightwinger]

Ray 12771426

.....Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

More productive than ever? Then what is your explanation behind the median family income lower than when DumBama took office? What is your explanation behind having the most American people not working since the mid 70's? What is your explanation behind our record poverty levels and government dependency?

When I was younger, people did work harder than ever. In many cases I had two jobs, and I was not alone. Many of my friends and family did the same. How many people today do you know with two or more jobs? No need to. There are expanded socialized programs to make up the wage indifference.

The Clinton success story is twofold: Clinton presided with a Republican Congress for the first time in over 40 years. He was President during the tech bubble which burst at the end of his second term. It had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. If anything, it might have been due to Welfare Reform pushed by the Republican Congress.

Possibly the same Reaganist disaster that has lasted over 30 years? DUH

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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

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

Oh quit blaming Reagan for the actions of Democrats with their never ending regulations against companies, taxation which is now 39% for corporations, unions which chased all the jobs out of the country, and NAFTA that your beloved President Clinton signed.

Only a liberal would dig up a dead body from years ago and blame it for the incompetence of their own leaders today.

The shift started with Reagan selling the nation on supply side economics. We sold out to the "job creators" at the expense of the evil government. If we work hard, and don't complain, the job creators will look out for us with higher wages and more jobs

 

[rightwinger]

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

Once again demonstrating that you are completely culturally illiterate

The other kids used to make fun of you didn't they?

And when shown up Rightwinger defaults to cartoons, internet memes, snark and insults.
It's really all you have when you've failed on facts and logic.
Better luck today, Rightwinger. Although your lack of knowledge and education will doom you yet again.

No, seriously

You were one of those kids whose parents didn't let him watch TV weren't you?

 

[bedowin62]

ABSOLUTELY TRUE about "rightwinger"!!

he posts stupidity non-stop and tries to give it an air of legitimacy. When called on it he responds with more stupidity that doesnt hold up to scrutiny.
here he is on a thread about the richest getting richer and the poorest getting poorer on the Progressive watch. He doesnt really have a valid rebuttal to anything, he's just spouting nonsense

 

[rightwinger]

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

As opposed to your usual fully-incoherent inanities?

If your meds were working properly my posts would be comprehensibel to you.

"comprehensibel"...New word...I like.

Rabbi hits the bottle late at night...it compensates for his loneliness

 

[rightwinger]

ABSOLUTELY TRUE about "rightwinger"!!

he posts stupidity non-stop and tries to give it an air of legitimacy. When called on it he responds with more stupidity that doesnt hold up to scrutiny.
here he is on a thread about the richest getting richer and the poorest getting poorer on the Progressive watch. He doesnt really have a valid rebuttal to anything, he's just spouting nonsense

Another satisfied customer

 

[The Rabbi]

ABSOLUTELY TRUE about "rightwinger"!!

he posts stupidity non-stop and tries to give it an air of legitimacy. When called on it he responds with more stupidity that doesnt hold up to scrutiny.
here he is on a thread about the richest getting richer and the poorest getting poorer on the Progressive watch. He doesnt really have a valid rebuttal to anything, he's just spouting nonsense

He is yanking chains. Nothing more. I doubt he even believes half the crap he posts. That's why he runs away every time he's shown to be wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

ABSOLUTELY TRUE about "rightwinger"!!

he posts stupidity non-stop and tries to give it an air of legitimacy. When called on it he responds with more stupidity that doesnt hold up to scrutiny.
here he is on a thread about the richest getting richer and the poorest getting poorer on the Progressive watch. He doesnt really have a valid rebuttal to anything, he's just spouting nonsense

He is yanking chains. Nothing more. I doubt he even believes half the crap he posts. That's why he runs away every time he's shown to be wrong.

Shit Rabbi

Still looking for your first aren't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

ABSOLUTELY TRUE about "rightwinger"!!

he posts stupidity non-stop and tries to give it an air of legitimacy. When called on it he responds with more stupidity that doesnt hold up to scrutiny.
here he is on a thread about the richest getting richer and the poorest getting poorer on the Progressive watch. He doesnt really have a valid rebuttal to anything, he's just spouting nonsense

He is yanking chains. Nothing more. I doubt he even believes half the crap he posts. That's why he runs away every time he's shown to be wrong.

Shit Rabbi

Still looking for your first aren't you?

Quiet, clown. When you have something informed to say about the rich getting richer under Obama let us know.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ray 12770488

. ... invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again.

How on earth could kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq in March 2003 that were peacefully verifying that Iraq had no WMD so that U.S. and UK troops could invade a country that had no connection to 9/11 or to Al Qaeda be justified on a basis that it would prevent another 9/11 attack? That makes no sense and is not an argument for invasion that the Bush Administration used to justify their really dumb war.

We were thinking about invading Tahiti, too, but had to put that on hold because they don't have any oil.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe a legacy of our current chief magistrate is to faithfully execute a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will; and unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, on that same at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[francoHFW]

Ray 12771426

.....Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

More productive than ever? Then what is your explanation behind the median family income lower than when DumBama took office? What is your explanation behind having the most American people not working since the mid 70's? What is your explanation behind our record poverty levels and government dependency?

When I was younger, people did work harder than ever. In many cases I had two jobs, and I was not alone. Many of my friends and family did the same. How many people today do you know with two or more jobs? No need to. There are expanded socialized programs to make up the wage indifference.

The Clinton success story is twofold: Clinton presided with a Republican Congress for the first time in over 40 years. He was President during the tech bubble which burst at the end of his second term. It had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. If anything, it might have been due to Welfare Reform pushed by the Republican Congress.

Possibly the same Reaganist disaster that has lasted over 30 years? DUH

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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

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

Oh quit blaming Reagan for the actions of Democrats with their never ending regulations against companies, taxation which is now 39% for corporations, unions which chased all the jobs out of the country, and NAFTA that your beloved President Clinton signed.

Only a liberal would dig up a dead body from years ago and blame it for the incompetence of their own leaders today.

Brainwashed functional IDIOT. Still have Reagan giveaways to the rich and giant corps, corps ACTUALLY pay 12%, Pubs have NOT followed thru on retraining workers for GOOD NAFTA jobs- 3 million are unfilled. WHAT NEW REGULATIONS?

LOOK AT THIS LINK FER CHRISSAKE. Do you need a 2x4 to the face or what? lol

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12771426

.....Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

More productive than ever? Then what is your explanation behind the median family income lower than when DumBama took office? What is your explanation behind having the most American people not working since the mid 70's? What is your explanation behind our record poverty levels and government dependency?

When I was younger, people did work harder than ever. In many cases I had two jobs, and I was not alone. Many of my friends and family did the same. How many people today do you know with two or more jobs? No need to. There are expanded socialized programs to make up the wage indifference.

The Clinton success story is twofold: Clinton presided with a Republican Congress for the first time in over 40 years. He was President during the tech bubble which burst at the end of his second term. It had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. If anything, it might have been due to Welfare Reform pushed by the Republican Congress.

Possibly the same Reaganist disaster that has lasted over 30 years? DUH

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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

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

Oh quit blaming Reagan for the actions of Democrats with their never ending regulations against companies, taxation which is now 39% for corporations, unions which chased all the jobs out of the country, and NAFTA that your beloved President Clinton signed.

Only a liberal would dig up a dead body from years ago and blame it for the incompetence of their own leaders today.

Brainwashed functional IDIOT. Still have Reagan giveaways to the rich and giant corps, corps ACTUALLY pay 12%, Pubs have NOT followed thru on retraining workers for GOOD NAFTA jobs- 3 million are unfilled. WHAT NEW REGULATIONS?

LOOK AT THIS LINK FER CHRISSAKE. Do you need a 2x4 to the face or what? lol

Report: 21,000 regulations so far under Obama, 2,375 set for 2015
By PAUL BEDARD (@SECRETSBEDARD) • 12/31/14 11:54 AM

Report: 21,000 regulations so far under Obama, 2,375 set for 2015

Reagan hasn't been President in nearly 30 years dummy. Between now and then, we've had four terms of Democrat presidencies. Corporations pay an average of 12%. Look up the word average and see what it means.

 

[francoHFW]

Ray 12771426 Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

More productive than ever? Then what is your explanation behind the median family income lower than when DumBama took office? What is your explanation behind having the most American people not working since the mid 70's? What is your explanation behind our record poverty levels and government dependency?

When I was younger, people did work harder than ever. In many cases I had two jobs, and I was not alone. Many of my friends and family did the same. How many people today do you know with two or more jobs? No need to. There are expanded socialized programs to make up the wage indifference.

The Clinton success story is twofold: Clinton presided with a Republican Congress for the first time in over 40 years. He was President during the tech bubble which burst at the end of his second term. It had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. If anything, it might have been due to Welfare Reform pushed by the Republican Congress.

Possibly the same Reaganist disaster that has lasted over 30 years? DUH

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
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

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

Oh quit blaming Reagan for the actions of Democrats with their never ending regulations against companies, taxation which is now 39% for corporations, unions which chased all the jobs out of the country, and NAFTA that your beloved President Clinton signed.

Only a liberal would dig up a dead body from years ago and blame it for the incompetence of their own leaders today.

Brainwashed functional IDIOT. Still have Reagan giveaways to the rich and giant corps, corps ACTUALLY pay 12%, Pubs have NOT followed thru on retraining workers for GOOD NAFTA jobs- 3 million are unfilled. WHAT NEW REGULATIONS?

LOOK AT THIS LINK FER CHRISSAKE. Do you need a 2x4 to the face or what? lol

Report: 21,000 regulations so far under Obama, 2,375 set for 2015
By PAUL BEDARD (@SECRETSBEDARD) • 12/31/14 11:54 AM

Report: 21,000 regulations so far under Obama, 2,375 set for 2015

Reagan hasn't been President in nearly 30 years dummy. Between now and then, we've had four terms of Democrat presidencies. Corporations pay an average of 12%. Look up the word average and see what it means.

It means small corporations pay more than giant ones. You need accounting corps and lobbyists to get away with murder under Reaganism .. These ridiculous numbers mean NOTHING. Obama hasn't been able to pass a gd thing except ACA, and our bloated Pub "system" got the overhaul and competition it needed. Hasn't hurt business or jobs a bit

 

[francoHFW]

BTW, The Examiner is PURE CRAPPE, NOT a real paper, paid for totally by Adelson. Just like all the other shytte links you morons have.

Republicans warned last year that if President Barack Obama was reelected, the administration would unleash a tidal wave of new government rules that would drown new business opportunities and swamp the economic recovery.

But Obama’s time in office so far has been marked by fewer regulations being adopted than during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, according to an analysis by theCenter for Effective Government.

In the first 52 months of Obama as president, the government issued a total of 1,229 rules. Bush’s administration produced more rules during the same period of time (1,469), as did the Clinton administration (2,136).

Agencies under Obama have issued more “economically significant rules” than earlier administrations did: 259 versus 206 under Bush and 215 under Clinton.

The Center for Effective Government noted that 55 of the 58 these rules developed since Obama began his second term have been associated with implementing the Affordable Care Act, while three implemented the Dodd-Frank Act (financial reform legislation).

“When these rules are removed from the analysis, the Obama administration has issued almost exactly the same number of economically significant rules as the Bush administration,” according to the center.

Number of New Government Regulations Slows under Obama

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12776749

Reagan hasn't been President in nearly 30 years dummy.

Did Reagan's voodoo economics die with him?

Have unions become more powerful since Reagan?

Bush 43's tax cuts for the rich during war time lived until three / four years ago.

Bush should have left Clinton's tax rate hike on the rich in place. But no, Reaganomics drove the ruiness decision to start a Trillion dollar war in Iraq and cut taxes to pay for it on credit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12776749

Reagan hasn't been President in nearly 30 years dummy.

Did Reagan's voodoo economics die with him?

Have unions become more powerful since Reagan?

Bush 43's tax cuts for the rich during war time lived until three / four years ago.

Bush should have left Clinton's tax rate hike on the rich in place. But no, Reaganomics drove the ruiness decision to start a Trillion dollar war in Iraq and cut taxes to pay for it on credit.

You Obama people sure have a lot of room to talk when it comes to spending. Bush spent less in two terms than Obama spent in one.

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat government to work with. Where was this Reagan reversal?

You people have to learn from experience. Recent history is a very good lesson. Unions equal more companies leaving states and the country. Unions equal more automation. That's all that could ever be accomplished with unions. If Reagan never took presidency, we would still be in the same situation we find ourselves in today. Reagan didn't destroy the unions, unions destroyed the unions. Reagan was only in charge for what went on when he was President; well that and the Democrat Congress behind him.