The Greatest Redistribution of Income in History

[georgephillip]

You are free to do as you choose... live by your decisions, efforts, achievements, etc... I certainly do not fault others in getting what they can in this free society...

Yeah.....we've noticed......​

"Legislation that is expected to reach the House floor this week would give corporations and other large donors a greater role in presidential elections by dismantling the public campaign finance system.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) introduced a bill that would end public financing of presidential elections on the anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. The bill, HR 359, would eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account. It currently has 18 cosponsors, all of whom are Republican.

"A vote for HR 359 is a great way to tell the American people that you want to give corporations more power over our government rather than make democracy work for ordinary Americans," David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, warned in a prepared statement.

The Citizens United decision overturned nearly a century of restrictions on campaign spending, allowing corporations, unions and other groups to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns without having to identify themselves. In a 5-4 decision last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on spending amounted to a violation of First Amendment rights.

The decision allowed a torrential downpour of private dollars into the November midterm elections, with interest groups spending over $80 million on the elections, up from just $16 million in 2006."

HERE​

NO CELEBRATING!

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, eliminating the public financing of presidential elections would save $617 million over the next 10 years, a fact noted on Twitter by Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner Tuesday."

GOP

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Alex Cockburn speculated recently he doesn't think Republican elites will tolerate Sarah Palin if she wins her party's nomination in 2012. Michael Bloomberg will be pressed into service, and Obama could face an independent challenge from Russ Feingold.

[...]

While I would much prefer Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich or Sheldon Whitehouse I think Russell Feingold would be an effective and productive replacement for Obama. I definitely would vote for him.

I'm rapidly approaching a point where I would prefer anyone but Obama. It's become very clear to me why Goldman Sachs gave him four times as much money in 2008 as McCain.

Liberals in this country seem incapable of judging this president by the content of his character or policies which leaves only the color of his skin to explain their continued support.

Truthdig currently has a pair of columns offering diametrically opposite solutions to our Obama problem. Bill Boyarsky claims Republicans will be so much worse we have to reelect Obama while Chris Hedges says the time for lesser evils has long since passed.

I find myself agreeing with Chris.(again)

Soros advises Obama to use forceful measures to override the will of the people

Soros advises Obama to use forceful measures to override the will of the people | Red White Blue News

Progressive America's version of communism: State capitalism

ESR | November 29, 2010 | Progressive America's version of communism: State capitalism

Socialists in the House: the Progressive Caucus

Forbes kisses up to George Soros and promotes gold investing just like Glenn Beck.... Soros is a Mad Man and Beck is a Man of Reality.... Forbes is a Liberal-Communist rag with little credibility.....

George Soros - Big Government

Forbes - George Soros

Obama-Run Foundation Gave Millions to Liberal Groups, Including One Run by Bill Ayers | CNSnews.com

Bombshell: Barack Obama conclusively outed as CIA creation

FCC's pay-as-you-go Internet plan raises video, access questions



The Devil `Soros' at it Everywhere...

American Thinker: Soros plays games with the factcheck website

http://politicalvine.com/politicalr...something-you-should-know-about-factcheckorg/

NRA-ILA :: Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar Daddy

George Soros' (Leftist Behind MoveOn.Org) Human Rights Watch Enabling Palestinian Propaganda And Ignoring Truth :: Middle East News and Perspectives :: Hyscience

So much for Snopes.com...Too...

Snopes Exposed--George Soros and Leftists Fund it | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

George Soros, Postmodern Villain...

NGO's, Behold Your God...

The modern day Father of American and Globle Liberal-Communism...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1170108/posts

George Soros, Postmodern Villain

The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power

Soros Strikes Again! | We the People of the United States

Who is George Soros? A Liberal Philanthropist Fighting the Culture War

Search

The Apostles..

David Ray Griffin v. Cass Sunstein

Arthur Goldwag: Cass Sunstein's Thought Police

Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein wants a plan of legally controlling internet information! : Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Bill Ayers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Puppeteer Behind Obama: George Soros | The Obambi.com Blog www.obambi.com

Search

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Search

Search

Search

Goldman Sachs and George Soros...

http://search.mywebsearch.com/myweb...tpr=sc&n=77dd9da9&ss=sub&st=hp&ptnrS=zz&ct=sc

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You do realize that there isn't some finite pile of money somewhere, that the rich got to before you did, don't you?

(Ref: Gross Domestic Product.) This (and every other) Nation owns a fixed amount of movable wealth which is distributed via its currency and other material holdings. So you need to study up on this subject because the most basic premise of your argument is wrong.


As you know, the New Deal brought about the most prosperous period in American history, the years between the 1940s and the 1980s. Ronald Reagan sabotaged the New Deal by implementing "Reaganomics" and commencing deregulation of the banking and finance industries. The sabotage was continued by Bush-1, Bill Clinton (NAFTA) and Bush-2.

Are you suggesting this nation was somehow prosperous under President Jimmy Carter? Did you happen to forget the inflation rate that went from 4.8% in 1976 to around 12% at the time of the 1980 election? What about the national unemployment rate that averaged at 7% and peaked at near 8%? Productive growth also declined to an average annual rate of 1% when compared to 3.2% of the 1960s, while interest rates soared as high as 21%. Crude oil also saw an increase from $50 a barrel to $107.35 in 1979. You don't seriously equate all these elements as a sign of a "prosperous" time in our nation's history?

The U.S. Economy from Eisenhower to Carter
Jimmy Carter Biography
Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To address the idea which apparently has been placed in your head by one or more of the neo-conservative propagandists you obviously are parroting, we who oppose this systematic destruction of our Nation's economy are not "envious" of wealth. We have no problem with wealth but rather with excessive wealth. And if you would allow yourself to think for yourself and to contemplate the damage being done to America by Reaganomics you might be able to understand that what you've been led to perceive as envy is in fact concern with the damage being done to our Country by systematic greed.

The Declaration of Independence states:
"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

We are each given the "opportunity" to reach our goals of success and prosperity. We are not, however, promised or guaranteed that one will be provided for us. That's what you fail to understand. We are each given the "potential" to achieve success through ( 1 ) hard work, ( 2 ) education, and ( 3 ) accepting personal responsibility. If you are having a difficult time finding the financial independence and "success" you desire, it's because you are lacking in one of the three. Wealth redistribution only adds to the discouragement of hard work, rewards complacency and a lack of initiative, as well as breeds mediocrity.

 

[georgephillip]

You are free to do as you choose... live by your decisions, efforts, achievements, etc... I certainly do not fault others in getting what they can in this free society... at least it is not involuntary confiscation of contributors to distribute thru government bureaucracy to con contributors, which is against the concept of a free society

So go for the gusto, idiot, shoot for the moon... go for that promotion from fry cook to cashier at McDonalds

My concept of a free society doesn't include parasites and their useful idiots like you using political bribes to transfer a billion dollars every year from fry cooks, cashiers, and their employers to hedge fund honcos.

"If you make less than $160,000 a year (95% of us), your household value has decreased, percentage-wise, over the last 25 years.

"According to noted researcher Edward Wolff, only the top 5% of American families increased their percentage of the country's total household net worth from 1983 to 2007."

How's your current household value compared to 1986?

What's your expectation for 2036?

The Big Obscenity:

And please show any actual transfer of monies from the poor to the rich via government or "bribes" or anything else

There is TONS of evidence of confiscation from earners to non-earners... but NOTHING in support of your bullshit assertion

Do you believe money is a commodity?

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

Political bribes or campaign contributions received a big boost one year ago when SCOTUS ruled corporations and unions can give virtually unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections:

"The Citizens United decision overturned nearly a century of restrictions on campaign spending, allowing corporations, unions and other groups to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns without having to identify themselves.

"In a 5-4 decision last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on spending amounted to a violation of First Amendment rights.

"The decision allowed a torrential downpour of private dollars into the November midterm elections, with interest groups spending over $80 million on the elections, up from just $16 million in 2006."

Do you approve the recent Republican solution offered by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)?

"Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) introduced a bill that would end public financing of presidential elections on the anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

"The bill, HR 359, would eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account.

"It currently has 18 cosponsors, all of whom are Republican."

Before you bury me beneath "TONS of evidence of confiscation" kindly define "earners" and "non-earners."

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Progressive dirtbags seem to constitute both so-called parties....
Actually, there is only one party...even in communism and fascism.... What does that make us in our political transformation....comfascatism....

 

[georgephillip]

Were Dick Nixon and Ronald Reagan progressives?

"Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

"The movement grew out of the 'Social Gospel' of American pietist millenarianism in the 1820s.[1]

"The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Republican base are the ones talking revolution. What is it those dumb fucks plan to do other than "make things different"?

Obama ran on nothing more than "hope" and "change"...and you bought it.

Making things different that what they are now is a good thing.

Yea, and I just posted a link on another thread that showed for the first time in a decade, American Manufacturing is growing. Hundreds of thousands of jobs worth.

Get it? In a decade? That the last two years PLUS EIGHT MORE!

What did Republicans do? Moved millions of jobs to China. Worked to close more than 40,000 American factories.

And recently, Republicans held millions hostage to get tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

The republicans moved the jobs to China? What you perhaps fail to understand is that the United States is among the highest in the world with respect to corporate taxes. Corporations are placed in a position to have to compete globally. With the Democrats insistence on higher taxes for the rich ( to include a high corporate tax ), such a strong stance comes at a cost. Why would a business, having to compete in an international market, be encouraged to maintain a plant in the United States when another country offers another possible location at a lower cost to the company? If you seek an answer as to why american workers are losing their jobs when a business moves overseas, then you must look to the high taxes that many business must endure. Taxes, and the Democrats refusal to acknowledge the hindrances it places on many corporations, as a further erosion to the creation of jobs in the United States.

When compared to other OECD countries:

24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

The Tax Foundation - U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes

 

[georgephillip]

Next time, try "I want what you have worked so hard for, handed to me for nothing"

It's a lot more to the point.

Thanks.

Even more to the point:

"There are 49 million people in the US who live in households which eat only because they receive food stamps, visit food pantries or soup kitchens for help.

"Sixteen million are so poor they have skipped meals or foregone food at some point in the last year.

"This is the highest level since statistics have been kept. Source: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service."

Liberal math?

Walmartstores.com: Careers
Find Jobs. Build a Better Career. Find Your Calling. | Monster.com

You want to eat... provide for yourself... work for it... you ain't owed it

How much is the Walton family owed?

"Rich Getting Richer: Facts

"The wealth of the richest 400 people in the US grew by 8 per cent in the last year to $1.37 trillion. Source: Forbes 400: The super-rich get richer, September 22, 2010, Money.com

"The top Hedge Fund Manager of 2009, David Tepper, 'earned' $4 billion last year. The rest of the top ten earned: $3.3 billion, $2.5 billion, $2.3 billion, $1.4 billion, $1.3 billion (tie for 6th and 7th place), $900 million (tie for 8th and 9th place), and in last place out of the top ten, $825 million. Source: Business Insider. 'Meet the top 10 earning hedge fund managers of 2009.'

"Income disparity in the US is now as bad as it was right before the Great Depression at the end of the 1920s.

"From 1979 to 2006, the richest 1 per cent more than doubled their share of the total US income, from 10 per cent to 23 per cent. The richest 1 per cent have an average annual income of more than $1.3 million.

"For the last 25 years, over 90 per cent of the total growth in income in the US went to the top 10 per cent earners – leaving 9 per cent of all income to be shared by the bottom 90 per cent. Source: Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz, State of Working America.

"In 1973, the average US CEO was paid $27 for every dollar paid to a typical worker; by 2007 that ratio had grown to $275 to $1. Source: Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz, State of Working America."

Try to remember that money is a commodity and can be possessed by only one person OR another.

Call one of the Walton heirs if confused.

 

[georgephillip]

Did you ever notice how leftists define everyone's self-interest as "voting to keep leftists in power"?

That's because leftists really don't give a shit about people. They just want power.

Meanwhile, draper, who is The Man that's keeping you down?

Do you think it's accurate to say blue-collar unionized Reagan Democrats voted in opposition to their economic class interests when they helped reelect the Gipper in 1984?

No, because I'm not simultaneously arrogant and stupid enough to think that I can define anyone's self-interests for them. I leave that to you leftists. You're certainly qualified.

You more than compensate with ignorance.

Blue collar union members who voted for a corporate prop like Reagan or Clinton endorsed the outsourcing of their own job.

Sounds like a class interest for anyone employed in the private sector.

 

[gekaap]

Wow, from reading this thread I see very little, other than trash talking by people who would rather avoid the point that for all the talk on the right of taxes causing a redistribution of wealth, it's actually a load of crap. The real redistribution of wealth occurs from right wing pro-business type of policies that excuse the wealthy from their filling their share, business practices that focus on inflating the time rings at the expense of the lower rings, and a national economic condition that makes increasingly burdens the lowest classes so as to make it difficult for them to emerge from those levels. Such an approach is not a recipe for a healthy economy.

 

[georgephillip]

Obama ran on nothing more than "hope" and "change"...and you bought it.

Making things different that what they are now is a good thing.

Yea, and I just posted a link on another thread that showed for the first time in a decade, American Manufacturing is growing. Hundreds of thousands of jobs worth.

Get it? In a decade? That the last two years PLUS EIGHT MORE!

What did Republicans do? Moved millions of jobs to China. Worked to close more than 40,000 American factories.

And recently, Republicans held millions hostage to get tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

The republicans moved the jobs to China? What you perhaps fail to understand is that the United States is among the highest in the world with respect to corporate taxes. Corporations are placed in a position to have to compete globally. With the Democrats insistence on higher taxes for the rich ( to include a high corporate tax ), such a strong stance comes at a cost. Why would a business, having to compete in an international market, be encouraged to maintain a plant in the United States when another country offers another possible location at a lower cost to the company? If you seek an answer as to why american workers are losing their jobs when a business moves overseas, then you must look to the high taxes that many business must endure. Taxes, and the Democrats refusal to acknowledge the hindrances it places on many corporations, as a further erosion to the creation of jobs in the United States.

When compared to other OECD countries:

24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

The Tax Foundation - U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes

Corporate income tax as a share of GDP has declined overall between 1946 and 2009.

"Take GE, for example. GE has $36Bn in sales and paid $431M in taxes (15% of net profits) in 2009.

"They also paid out $9Bn in dividends and over $24Bn in 2008 and 2007 and in 2007 they bought back their own stock but, in those three years, they paid -(NEGATIVE) $900M in taxes!

"Are you feeling victimized yet?

" Does GE use our infrastructure? Do they use our public airwaves? Are they protected by our police?

"Is our army out there fighting and dying to protect them? Do they take money from our government? Do we educate their employees? This is the INSANITY of the US tax system."

 

[newpolitics]

Nobody needs the amount of money these people have. I don't understand why it is encouraged and protected. The stats in the original post are disgusting. The rich are getting way too rich, and the poor too poor. The argument that our poor are rich relative to those in absolute poverty, is really inflammatory. It is relative poverty. That they are obese is only because when you have no money, you don't have a lot to spend on food, and the cheapest foods tend to be the worst, highest in fat, cholesterol and calories. Eating healthy is expensive and time consuming. If we had absolute poverty in this country, we would be a third world country. That wouldn't really fly for the establishment, so they introduce welfare.

We americans are disgusting if we really feel the rich are entitled to everything they get. They are not special, they are just lucky., and greedy. Why is greed rewarded?

 

[Iowa10000]

How many people understand that the greatest redistripution of wealth is what the Govt send back to states from taxes and fees it collects.
Red states recieve like 40 cents more for every dollar that leaves their state to the fed govt and is returned to them by the fed govt then do Blue states do on average. The average returned to Blue Staes is about .85 cents for each dollar, while the red states recieve 1.25 for each dollar.

SO WHAT IT SAY'S IS RED STATES ARE WELFARE STATES

New Mexico $2.03
Mississippi $2.02
Alaska $1.84
Louisiana $1.78
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota $1.53
Kentucky $1.51
Virginia $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii $1.44
Maine $1.41
Arkansas $1.41
Oklahoma $1.36
South Carolina $1.35
Missouri $1.32
Maryland $1.30
Tennessee $1.27
Idaho $1.21
Arizona $1.19
Kansas $1.12
Wyoming $1.11
Iowa $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont $1.08
North Carolina $1.08
Pennsylvania $1.07
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island $1.00
Florida $0.97
Texas $0.94
Oregon $0.93
Michigan $0.92
Washington $0.88
Wisconsin $0.86
Massachusetts $0.82
Colorado $0.81
New York $0.79
California $0.78
Delaware $0.77
Illinois $0.75
Minnesota $0.72
New Hampshire $0.71
Connecticut $0.69
Nevada $0.65
New Jersey $0.61

are you blue or red and how do you fair.

 

[MikeK]

Are you suggesting this nation was somehow prosperous under President Jimmy Carter? Did you happen to forget the inflation rate that went from 4.8% in 1976 to around 12% at the time of the 1980 election? What about the national unemployment rate that averaged at 7% and peaked at near 8%? Productive growth also declined to an average annual rate of 1% when compared to 3.2% of the 1960s, while interest rates soared as high as 21%. Crude oil also saw an increase from $50 a barrel to $107.35 in 1979. You don't seriously equate all these elements as a sign of a "prosperous" time in our nation's history?

While the economy did indeed undergo a rather severe period of inflationary recession during the Carter years, owing largely to the oil crisis, such periods are to be expected even in the strongest economy. What is important is that the economy, while temporarily adjusting, remains stable -- which was the case during that period. Most important, our manufacturing base had remained intact, we were still the wealthiest nation in the world and we were virtually debt free. Compare that to today -- after eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush-1, eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Bush-2.

The fact is Carter could easily have pulled the economy out of its slump if he were willing to do what Ronald Reagan eagerly did, which is put the nation on a credit card and commence what has become a virtually unmanageable national debt. But Carter was not willing to do that because of his concern for the future. And this (linked) graph makes his reasoning clear:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Reagan-Revolution.gif

Yes. The economy had hit a bump during the Carter years but it was Reagan's precipitous actions that destabilized it and led to the disaster we're dealing with today.

The Declaration of Independence states:
"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

We are each given the "opportunity" to reach our goals of success and prosperity. We are not, however, promised or guaranteed that one will be provided for us. That's what you fail to understand. We are each given the "potential" to achieve success through ( 1 ) hard work, ( 2 ) education, and ( 3 ) accepting personal responsibility. If you are having a difficult time finding the financial independence and "success" you desire, it's because you are lacking in one of the three. Wealth redistribution only adds to the discouragement of hard work, rewards complacency and a lack of initiative, as well as breeds mediocrity.

The paragraph from the Declaration of Independence refers specifically to slavery and is not at all relevant to this discussion.

But all you've said below it is so inspiring it should be set to music. It does however leave some rather important questions dangling inconveniently, such as how does one perform the requisite "hard work" when his job has been exported to some foreign country and the unemployment rate virtually eliminates the possibility of finding a replacement job? And how does one obtain a useful education when one is either homeless or must work two or three minimum wage jobs to avoid homelessness? And by "accepting personal responsibility," do you mean watch your children starve rather than accept any form of assistance?

And my question to you is do you take the standard neo-Conservative, Limbaugh-acolyte position that every American who has fallen on hard times is either a drug addict or an habitual slacker? If so you need to pull your head out of the sand and have a look around. There are tent camps springing up all over America and they are inhabited by people who are just as well educated, just as willing to work hard, and just as responsible as you. The problem is Reaganomics and right-wing politics has finally caught up and pulled the rug out from under them.

In case you've forgotten, in spite of Bill Clinton's NAFTA sell-out the U.S. economy was in very good shape when Bush took Office and ravaged it -- adding several trillion dollars to the national debt and bringing the economy to the brink of collapse. The Carter recession is hardly worth mentioning compared to what the right-wing has done to our economy.

And contrary to what you've been led to believe by corporatist propagandists, wealth redistribution in the 1940s didn't produce any of the things you've listed but in fact produced the opposite effect -- emergence of the middle class and the commencement of our most prosperous era. How do you explain that?

 

[shintao]

soros

You gave us too much information. Apparently Obama has the same tool box as Bush.

Executive orders
Rulemaking
Agency management
Convening and creating public-private partnerships
Commanding the armed forces
Diplomacy
Interpretation of regulations
Veto
Intimidation
civil right violations
policing powers

 

[Douger]

Pure envy. Digusting.

Our "poor" are among the richest 5% of people in the world. Our "poor" are obese. Our "poor" have color TV's, cell phones, cars, xboxes, etc, etc. Along with free housing, healthcare, education, food, and handout cash.

Get over it. Our rich are rich. Our poor are rich. Our country is rich. You live in modern Rome. Enjoy.

Define "poor."

For the last year my monthly income has consisted of two parts:
SSA - $612/month
Part Time Job - ~$650/ month

I was notified today my part time job would be discontinued 6/30/11 due to budget cuts.

Kindly point out that "free housing." (No jails, please)

Ouch !
I spend more than $600 on eating/partying out. I suggest moving to a more affordable country. Ecuador comes to mind for your income bracket.
It's a great place.You can rent a rustic country house for $80 to $100 a month.

 

[georgephillip]

You do realize that there isn't some finite pile of money somewhere, that the rich got to before you did, don't you?

(Ref: Gross Domestic Product.) This (and every other) Nation owns a fixed amount of movable wealth which is distributed via its currency and other material holdings. So you need to study up on this subject because the most basic premise of your argument is wrong.


As you know, the New Deal brought about the most prosperous period in American history, the years between the 1940s and the 1980s. Ronald Reagan sabotaged the New Deal by implementing "Reaganomics" and commencing deregulation of the banking and finance industries. The sabotage was continued by Bush-1, Bill Clinton (NAFTA) and Bush-2.

Are you suggesting this nation was somehow prosperous under President Jimmy Carter? Did you happen to forget the inflation rate that went from 4.8% in 1976 to around 12% at the time of the 1980 election? What about the national unemployment rate that averaged at 7% and peaked at near 8%? Productive growth also declined to an average annual rate of 1% when compared to 3.2% of the 1960s, while interest rates soared as high as 21%. Crude oil also saw an increase from $50 a barrel to $107.35 in 1979. You don't seriously equate all these elements as a sign of a "prosperous" time in our nation's history?

The U.S. Economy from Eisenhower to Carter
Jimmy Carter Biography
Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To address the idea which apparently has been placed in your head by one or more of the neo-conservative propagandists you obviously are parroting, we who oppose this systematic destruction of our Nation's economy are not "envious" of wealth. We have no problem with wealth but rather with excessive wealth. And if you would allow yourself to think for yourself and to contemplate the damage being done to America by Reaganomics you might be able to understand that what you've been led to perceive as envy is in fact concern with the damage being done to our Country by systematic greed.

The Declaration of Independence states:
"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

We are each given the "opportunity" to reach our goals of success and prosperity. We are not, however, promised or guaranteed that one will be provided for us. That's what you fail to understand. We are each given the "potential" to achieve success through ( 1 ) hard work, ( 2 ) education, and ( 3 ) accepting personal responsibility. If you are having a difficult time finding the financial independence and "success" you desire, it's because you are lacking in one of the three. Wealth redistribution only adds to the discouragement of hard work, rewards complacency and a lack of initiative, as well as breeds mediocrity.

Regarding prosperity:

Were unemployment and inflation calculated the same way during Carter's Administration as they are today?

I can attest from being alive at that time it was possible to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment and maintain a car on a single minimum wage job. That's impossible today.

Opportunity for prosperity has largely become the province of the wealthiest 20% of Americans with the richest 1% using their political influence to amass the largest share.

The Wealth Distribution

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

"In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

"Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010)."

Economic events like the oil shock and inflation rates you mention were manufactured by elites as part of a decades long process to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the richest Americans.

Globally the goal was never to lift "third world" living standards to where US standards were in the 70s but rather to depress the living standards of US workers until their lifestyles more closely resembled those in the developing countries.

We're nearly there.

 

[daveman]

Do you think it's accurate to say blue-collar unionized Reagan Democrats voted in opposition to their economic class interests when they helped reelect the Gipper in 1984?

No, because I'm not simultaneously arrogant and stupid enough to think that I can define anyone's self-interests for them. I leave that to you leftists. You're certainly qualified.

You more than compensate with ignorance.

Blue collar union members who voted for a corporate prop like Reagan or Clinton endorsed the outsourcing of their own job.

Sounds like a class interest for anyone employed in the private sector.

Like I said: Stupid and arrogant leftists think they can define everyone's self-interest for them. And I'm SURE it's just coincidence that it's always "voting to keep leftists in power".

 

[daveman]

Nobody needs the amount of money these people have.

Says who?

 

[DiamondDave]

My concept of a free society doesn't include parasites and their useful idiots like you using political bribes to transfer a billion dollars every year from fry cooks, cashiers, and their employers to hedge fund honcos.

"If you make less than $160,000 a year (95% of us), your household value has decreased, percentage-wise, over the last 25 years.

"According to noted researcher Edward Wolff, only the top 5% of American families increased their percentage of the country's total household net worth from 1983 to 2007."

How's your current household value compared to 1986?

What's your expectation for 2036?

The Big Obscenity:

And please show any actual transfer of monies from the poor to the rich via government or "bribes" or anything else

There is TONS of evidence of confiscation from earners to non-earners... but NOTHING in support of your bullshit assertion

Do you believe money is a commodity?

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

Political bribes or campaign contributions received a big boost one year ago when SCOTUS ruled corporations and unions can give virtually unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections:

"The Citizens United decision overturned nearly a century of restrictions on campaign spending, allowing corporations, unions and other groups to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns without having to identify themselves.

"In a 5-4 decision last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on spending amounted to a violation of First Amendment rights.

"The decision allowed a torrential downpour of private dollars into the November midterm elections, with interest groups spending over $80 million on the elections, up from just $16 million in 2006."

Do you approve the recent Republican solution offered by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)?

"Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) introduced a bill that would end public financing of presidential elections on the anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

"The bill, HR 359, would eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account.

"It currently has 18 cosponsors, all of whom are Republican."

Before you bury me beneath "TONS of evidence of confiscation" kindly define "earners" and "non-earners."

Are you that fucking dense

Earner.. one who earns an income for themselves and provide for themselves

Non-earner - one who does not provide for themselves and relies on others (thru government entitlement or whatever) to do it for them or have it provided to them