Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yup, a BJ or LIES about Hillary and e-mails from the Russians are just like the Russians throwing the election. Lies from your giant bs propaganda machine (WE DONT HAVE ONE, dupes) are all the GOP has. And racist rube ignoramuses.Omg I went to lunch with my GOP co-worker. He said Democrats don't really care about Russia they just want to use it against republicans. He heard it on rush. I said, "you mean like Monica?" And it dawned on him Republicans do it too. Same with Benghazi or fast and furious or Hillary using a private email.I can and have before, but get tired of schooling you dupes after 10 years. Those teachers are still teachers as they're in a socialist network and no doubt couldn't give a shytte about transportation. I'll get the info on why prosecuting criminally if you really want. If they were GOP prosecuting they probably would have, but Dems never do that corrupt shytte. That's why nobody actually prosecutes Hilary, Bill or any other Dems, except on their bs propaganda...Tel us all about Bill lying about BJs now dupe. All the GOP did was lie about wrecking the country financially and the world financially AND militarily LOL.I don't blame you. But the nutters are all GOPers as far as I've seen...take your brainwashed belittlement of teachers. RW idiocy. It's damn hard, especially if you don't have the disciplinary gene.Why would you need to know? I really don't reveal a lot to a bunch of nutters on a message board.
You are the asshole that makes claims he can't back, so please spare me your opinions, they are like assholes, everyone has one, in your case, you are one.
As far as teachers, I have worked with them because our company had an account with them and they were for the most part the dumbest people we dealt with. We would laugh at them when they would leave, because they had no clue.
Yep, the Democrats and the Republicans are the same in that respect. I have been saying that and you denied it and now you agree. LOL!
Yes, and it was NOTHING in comparison. Mainly he signed the GOP bills....as long as we had Clinton regulators, nothing happened.The Times speaks the truth. Almost all the ridiculous mortgages came with BOOOSH.Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble - The New York ...The Booshies changed so many regs and oversight rules and just plain oversight there wasn't much to prosecute. Just watch the Trumpettes do the same...Didn't need Congress for the Justice Dept. to go after the crooks. So I have no idea what you are saying.
Maybe Obama and the Democrats were too stupid to figure out that you didn't need Congress to prosecute.
www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/.../21iht-admin.4.18853088.html
Dec 21, 2008 - Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble ... But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged ... "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies. ... A lot has changed since then. ... But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversightagencies ...
Bush's Philosophy Stoked the Mortgage Bonfire - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html
Dec 20, 2008 - President Bush, who vowed to spread the dream of homeownership, is leaving ... But hishousing policies and hands-off approach to regulation ... “No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. ... A lot has changed since then. .... said, that the Oxley bill would have produced “the worst of allpossible ...►
Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia
Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia
The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was a set of events and conditions that led to a financial ... The FCIC wrote that U.S. government affordable housing policies and the .... policy or markets do not by themselves explain the U.S. housing bubble. .... possible—and they should have responded by extending regulationsand the ...
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey...housing.../249903/
Dec 13, 2011 - The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. ... It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below ... This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all ... Have the Republicans "blame[d] the housing crisis on the ...
George W. Bush - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME
content.time.com/time/specials/.../0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877320,00.html
That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on ... Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But ... he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the WhiteHouse as well as other powerful ...
The wiki article is pretty accurate and no very partisan and blames several reason. It wasn't one issue or action it was several by several people over the decades. Thanks for proving my point.
I have used the Time article several times, it will also show Clinton was one of 25 key players in the debacle.
I never said Bush was innocent. Did you read the issue with Clinton and his contribution? There were others besides Clinton and Bush.
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble - The New York ...
Congrats, you are the exception that proves the rule. Teachers are stupid, eh? LOL.Meanwhile, the GOP steals from the nonrich and gives to the greedy rich DUH. And baffles dupes like you with BS propaganda. The worst propaganda machine BY FAR in our history. You idiot dupes believe the poor just got lazy the last 35 years now. Racist fools...Those are pissant little crimes, not like wrecking the world and the nonrich and the country stealing for their greedy idiot rich cronies thru POLICY, dupe. The GOP crooks ALSO does the pissant shytte duuhhhh.I can and have before, but get tired of schooling you dupes after 10 years. Those teachers are still teachers as they're in a socialist network and no doubt couldn't give a shytte about transportation. I'll get the info on why prosecuting criminally if you really want. If they were GOP prosecuting they probably would have, but Dems never do that corrupt shytte. That's why nobody actually prosecutes Hilary, Bill or any other Dems, except on their bs propaganda...Tel us all about Bill lying about BJs now dupe. All the GOP did was lie about wrecking the country financially and the world financially AND militarily LOL.
I wasn't in transportation back then. It was cell phones, and they were really stupid idiots.
As far as Dems not doing corrupt shit. Jefferson from Louisiana, Rostenkowski from Illinois, then you have the Illinois governor Blago who is now in prison. Keep filling yourself with BS and I'll keep showing what a tool you are for the Dems.
Whatever dude, only in your little world, not in the world we live in.
Where have I said the poor got lazy? Your stereotyping is pretty funny and very errant.
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble - The New York ...
Try the facts...for a change!
Allow me to assist you...AGAIN.
Just to remind all our FRIENDS from the far left, the responsibility for this mess lies with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. AND WITH REPUBLICANS for backing off every time Barney Frank and his cronies played…THE RACE CARD! The housing bubble is what led to the downfall and that was driven by Democrats, starting with Jimmy Carter and hugely expanded by Bill Clinton. Here are the facts, once again, for you to ignore….
HUD TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION, BOOST MINORITY HOMEOWNERSHIP AND WORK WITH URBAN LEAGUE TO FURTHER GOALS
August 5, 1997
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/HUD+to+Fight+Discrimination,+Boost+Minority+Homeownership+and+Work...-a019650647
New York Times - 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending -
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
President Bush’s and the Administrations Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs – Fannie and Freddie dating back to 2001
Just the Facts: The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
By Elliot Blair Smith,
USA TODAY
Fannie Mae to pay $400 million fine
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Franklin Raines was Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton and returned to Fannie Mae as its CEO in 1999. Raines is not a “chief” economic adviser for President Barack Hussein Obama but has advised the administration on mortgage and housing matters. Obama had hired another former Fannie CEO, Jim Johnson as a member of Obama’s V.P. search committee and who was forced to quit under fire.
Bloomberg News -
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis -
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Democrats in their own words covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Democrats of Financial Crisis
From the New York Times
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003 WASHINGTON,
Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates
Read more: New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
From USNews and World Report
Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
By Sam Dealey
September 10, 2008
[…]
So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
[…]
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle
Wall Street Journal Barney’s Rubble – September 17, 2008
Barney's Rubble
Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble?
Maxine Waters & Barney Frank - Then Vs. Now -
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
Steve Kroft On Credit Default Swaps And Their Central Role In The Unfolding Economic Crisis -
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street
All this, in addition to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by President William Jefferson Clinton caused the meltdown.
It COULD have been stopped or greatly reduced. Democrats fought that every step of the way and the Republicans wilted under the barrage of being called racist and worse.
You ought to listen to your elders, superdupe.Over my lifetime......82 years, I've learned to be more concerned for folks who are simply trying to get three meals a day and rent than the ultra-rich moguls who use their usually inherited money to screw poor folks!
Nothing is occurring which makes me want to reconsider or re-evaluate.
Your ignorance is duly noted as well as expected.
Personally, it seems to me that your far left Socialist cause would be better served by facing and posting the truth as opposed to lying.
You know, or SHOULD know that your statement about the "ultra rich" usually inherit their money is totally bogus. No surprise. How have any one of them, inherited or not, "screwed" poor folks? How have they taken anything out of the pockets of the poor?
For your extremely reluctant edification.
OCT 3, 2014 @ 11:09 AM
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Agustino Fontevecchia, contributor
[...]
The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires, but at the extreme, it was still totally skewed. Our percentage of 1s stood at 17.75%, compared to 3% for 10s (absolutely self-made).
Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it. But, again, at the extremes we still saw a full one-tenth of the list, or 40 of them, having fully inherited their fortunes and not working to grow it, and only 4.75% of them, or 19, as totally self-made, having battled adversity to reach the top.
Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.
[...]
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Meanwhile, with all those new billionaires- (sounds like online ones), the middle class and the country go to hell. Great job, Reaganistas.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Filed under Economicsno comments
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 60 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 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
Reaganism just rolls on, superdupe. The non-rich slowly lose. Except during GOP meltdowns. Should get faster under Drumpf.You ought to listen to your elders, superdupe.Over my lifetime......82 years, I've learned to be more concerned for folks who are simply trying to get three meals a day and rent than the ultra-rich moguls who use their usually inherited money to screw poor folks!
Nothing is occurring which makes me want to reconsider or re-evaluate.
Your ignorance is duly noted as well as expected.
Personally, it seems to me that your far left Socialist cause would be better served by facing and posting the truth as opposed to lying.
You know, or SHOULD know that your statement about the "ultra rich" usually inherit their money is totally bogus. No surprise. How have any one of them, inherited or not, "screwed" poor folks? How have they taken anything out of the pockets of the poor?
For your extremely reluctant edification.
OCT 3, 2014 @ 11:09 AM
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Agustino Fontevecchia, contributor
[...]
The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires, but at the extreme, it was still totally skewed. Our percentage of 1s stood at 17.75%, compared to 3% for 10s (absolutely self-made).
Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it. But, again, at the extremes we still saw a full one-tenth of the list, or 40 of them, having fully inherited their fortunes and not working to grow it, and only 4.75% of them, or 19, as totally self-made, having battled adversity to reach the top.
Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.
[...]
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Meanwhile, with all those new billionaires- (sounds like online ones), the middle class and the country go to hell. Great job, Reaganistas.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Filed under Economicsno comments
Over the past 60 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 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
Until you show us 2007-2016, your post is worthless. Why are you afraid of those dates?
Great bs propaganda spam, superdupe! Funny how F+F's share of the market went down at least 50% in 2003 and 4 and almost ALL the toxic loans came after Clinton. And that GlassSteagal repeal came from the GOP. Idiot dupes
Only place with all of it. Soooo, dupe. here's household debt - OMG GOP college loans! OMG look at UK- the other RW modern country...go Tories!You ought to listen to your elders, superdupe.Over my lifetime......82 years, I've learned to be more concerned for folks who are simply trying to get three meals a day and rent than the ultra-rich moguls who use their usually inherited money to screw poor folks!
Nothing is occurring which makes me want to reconsider or re-evaluate.
Your ignorance is duly noted as well as expected.
Personally, it seems to me that your far left Socialist cause would be better served by facing and posting the truth as opposed to lying.
You know, or SHOULD know that your statement about the "ultra rich" usually inherit their money is totally bogus. No surprise. How have any one of them, inherited or not, "screwed" poor folks? How have they taken anything out of the pockets of the poor?
For your extremely reluctant edification.
OCT 3, 2014 @ 11:09 AM
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Agustino Fontevecchia, contributor
[...]
The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires, but at the extreme, it was still totally skewed. Our percentage of 1s stood at 17.75%, compared to 3% for 10s (absolutely self-made).
Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it. But, again, at the extremes we still saw a full one-tenth of the list, or 40 of them, having fully inherited their fortunes and not working to grow it, and only 4.75% of them, or 19, as totally self-made, having battled adversity to reach the top.
Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.
[...]
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Meanwhile, with all those new billionaires- (sounds like online ones), the middle class and the country go to hell. Great job, Reaganistas.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Filed under Economicsno comments
Over the past 60 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 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
Until you show us 2007-2016, your post is worthless. Why are you afraid of those dates?
So he was HORRIBLE for going along with the GOP? That's the big GOP argument now...lol.Great bs propaganda spam, superdupe! Funny how F+F's share of the market went down at least 50% in 2003 and 4 and almost ALL the toxic loans came after Clinton. And that GlassSteagal repeal came from the GOP. Idiot dupes
True, the repeal of Glass/Steagle came from a Republican Congress and, like the lowering of qualifications for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased loans, it was signed by President Bill Clinton. Perhaps he was concentrating on a Lewinski more than his real job.
HUD to Fight Discrimination, Boost Minority Homeownership and Work With Urban League to Further Goals - Free Online Library
Funny? What do you want, a 2x4 to the forehead? lol. You appear to be a giggling idiot...Top 10%'s share highest EVER!!!
Unions’ Decline and the Rise of the Top 10 Percent’s Share of Income
Just hang it up, dupe, it'll just get worse until Dems can change Reaganist tax rates and policies...
Over my lifetime......82 years, I've learned to be more concerned for folks who are simply trying to get three meals a day and rent than the ultra-rich moguls who use their usually inherited money to screw poor folks!
Nothing is occurring which makes me want to reconsider or re-evaluate.
Your ignorance is duly noted as well as expected.
Personally, it seems to me that your far left Socialist cause would be better served by facing and posting the truth as opposed to lying.
You know, or SHOULD know that your statement about the "ultra rich" usually inherit their money is totally bogus. No surprise. How have any one of them, inherited or not, "screwed" poor folks? How have they taken anything out of the pockets of the poor?
For your extremely reluctant edification.
OCT 3, 2014 @ 11:09 AM
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Agustino Fontevecchia, contributor
[...]
The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires, but at the extreme, it was still totally skewed. Our percentage of 1s stood at 17.75%, compared to 3% for 10s (absolutely self-made).
Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it. But, again, at the extremes we still saw a full one-tenth of the list, or 40 of them, having fully inherited their fortunes and not working to grow it, and only 4.75% of them, or 19, as totally self-made, having battled adversity to reach the top.
Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.
[...]
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
the rich can earn income from capital gains; the poor usually cannot.they already get a capital gains preference.
Where and how? Everyone pays the same rate for Capital Gains, even you.
That is where it is most effective; means tested welfare should be reserved for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.UE compensation is simply more cost effective, that is all.
Not with people who are capable of work and do not.
Better yet, requiring people who are on unemployment to work, once again. It worked in 1996, it will work again.
That is where it is most effective; means tested welfare should be reserved for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.UE compensation is simply more cost effective, that is all.
Not with people who are capable of work and do not.
Better yet, requiring people who are on unemployment to work, once again. It worked in 1996, it will work again.
Bluebloods and BrownnosesOver my lifetime......82 years, I've learned to be more concerned for folks who are simply trying to get three meals a day and rent than the ultra-rich moguls who use their usually inherited money to screw poor folks!
Nothing is occurring which makes me want to reconsider or re-evaluate.
Your ignorance is duly noted as well as expected.
Personally, it seems to me that your far left Socialist cause would be better served by facing and posting the truth as opposed to lying.
You know, or SHOULD know that your statement about the "ultra rich" usually inherit their money is totally bogus. No surprise. How have any one of them, inherited or not, "screwed" poor folks? How have they taken anything out of the pockets of the poor?
For your extremely reluctant edification.
OCT 3, 2014 @ 11:09 AM
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Agustino Fontevecchia, contributor
[...]
The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires, but at the extreme, it was still totally skewed. Our percentage of 1s stood at 17.75%, compared to 3% for 10s (absolutely self-made).
Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it. But, again, at the extremes we still saw a full one-tenth of the list, or 40 of them, having fully inherited their fortunes and not working to grow it, and only 4.75% of them, or 19, as totally self-made, having battled adversity to reach the top.
Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.
[...]
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Crunch, Crunch! Squish, Squish!If we cut off the children of the rich at age 18, they'd be subject to the same conditions their Daddies make the rest of us go through. The son of a millionaire would have just as much chance of winding up a blue-collar worker as the son of a blue-collar worker does.
Cut off? What? Specifically how?
The Country Club Left Always Serves the Country Club RightGreat bs propaganda spam, superdupe! Funny how F+F's share of the market went down at least 50% in 2003 and 4 and almost ALL the toxic loans came after Clinton. And that GlassSteagal repeal came from the GOP. Idiot dupes
True, the repeal of Glass/Steagle came from a Republican Congress and, like the lowering of qualifications for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased loans, it was signed by President Bill Clinton. Perhaps he was concentrating on a Lewinski more than his real job.
HUD to Fight Discrimination, Boost Minority Homeownership and Work With Urban League to Further Goals - Free Online Library
Not seeing any quotes. You didn't just make stuff up did you?I already did. Anytime you blame the poor or the nonrich for anything, you do.Provide a quote for analysis.Yup- the next post.Did you find yet where I complained about the victims?Sure they did, but not in dupe world. But the whole idea was GOP crap and cost the economy 1% in GDP growth each time. Great job. For NOTHING.Oh, but please do show where. Go ahead, I'll wait. If you'd like, I can keep reminding you that you have yet to show it.
And the democrats refused to negotiate anything.
