Wealth Reality

[OohPooPahDoo]

So that would make Ronald Reagan the father of progressivism.

No, the Progressive era really started with Wilson. Every since, it's been bigger and bigger government, more and more debt, and low and behold, an even wider wealth and income gap. Central planners suck, all of them.

You have a cognitive brain defect. The debt didn't start with the progressive era. We know EXACTLY when our debt started.

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

And he did so at a time when interest rates were relatively high. The intent, obviously, was to place a burden on the taxpayer to pay interest payments to the mostly private, mostly wealthy, entities that own U.S. Treasury obligations, while at the same time lowering the tax burden of the upper-class through tax cuts.

 

[Bfgrn]

The wealth gap from the New Deal through the Great Society was the closest it has ever been in our nations history. Don't you morons know how to read a fucking graph? The REASON the wealth gap is now what it was during the Gilded Age, is Nixon, Reagan and conservative era that has destroyed the middle class...

This is what I'm getting from the graph.

1. Americans are better off when the white area is narrow, when taxes are high and top incomes are not much better than bottom incomes.
2. The white was narrower with the New Deal between 1933 to 1941 than it was from 1983 to 2007.
3. This is supposed to prove Americans were better off during the '33-'41 New Deal than from '83 to '97.

People believe that? Really?

Americans were probably not better off between 1933 to 1941. They were transitioning from a really bad place (Great Depression) to a much better place. Although the New Deal put 60% of the unemployed to work, social insurance programs were not in place in 1933 and Medicare/Medicaid were decades away. The reverse is true from '83 to '97.

What the graph SHOULD tell you is that liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society was the greatest era in American history. I've been around since Harry Truman was President, so I lived through a good portion of the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society. It was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

There was no need to 'fix' it, which the great socialist Reagan did. The conservative era that followed has been a huge failure. Only a moron would still believe 'trickle down' ever happened.

 

[expat_panama]

...This is supposed to prove Americans were better off during the '33-'41 New Deal than from '83 to '97. People believe that? Really?

Americans were probably not better off between 1933 to 1941. ...

We part company right there because I see Americans without a doubt definately better off in the 80's & '90's than during the Great Depression. We're better off now than during that era. These days people complain about a recovery with unemployment between 8-10%. During the recovery from 3/1/1933 to 5/1/1937 we had unemployment between 20 and 30%.

So many things goofy about the chart. It's got "Great Depression" from 1922 to 1937 and "Depression 2.0" from 1988 to 2007.

Here're the NBER econ cycle dates:
PEAK TROUGH
8/1/1929 3/1/1933
5/1/1937 6/1/1938
2/1/1945 10/1/1945
11/1/1948 10/1/1949
7/1/1953 5/1/1954
8/1/1957 4/1/1958
4/1/1960 2/1/1961
12/1/1969 11/1/1970
11/1/1973 3/1/1975
1/1/1980 7/1/1980
7/1/1981 11/1/1982
7/1/1990 3/1/1991
3/1/2001 11/1/2001
12/1/2007 3/1/2009

...the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society. It was America's finest moment. ...

We've got different takes on this. What I'm noticing is that average unemployment 1933-1968 was 8%, and since then it's been 6%. Also, for every thousand days of the liberal era we had 156 days of economic contraction vs. 97 days since. I like 'since' better.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Americans were probably not better off between 1933 to 1941.

probably???? FYI A depression is considered a very bad thing THAT MAKES YOU WORSE OFF!!!!!

See why we are positve a liberal will be slow??

They were transitioning from a really bad place (Great Depression) to a much better place.

FYI world war are is considered a very very bad place!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[midcan5]

Whenever I talk to children of the upper classes, the elites or modern America entitled class, I feel like I have entered a bubble so isolated from the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent that I am mystified on how you even get to reality. The article below demonstrates the bubble that shelters some who fail to even see it.

The Philosopher's Stone: THE MYTH OF THE SELF-MADE MAN

Mitt, Tagg, And The Romney Family

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whenever I talk to children of the upper classes, the elites or modern America entitled class, I feel like I have entered a bubble so isolated from the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent that I am mystified on how you even get to reality. The article below demonstrates the bubble that shelters some who fail to even see it.

The Philosopher's Stone: THE MYTH OF THE SELF-MADE MAN

Mitt, Tagg, And The Romney Family

The only bubble that exists is the one around your cognitive ability.

 

[eflatminor]

Whenever I talk to children of the upper classes, the elites or modern America entitled class, I feel like I have entered a bubble so isolated from the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent that I am mystified on how you even get to reality. The article below demonstrates the bubble that shelters some who fail to even see it.

The Philosopher's Stone: THE MYTH OF THE SELF-MADE MAN

Mitt, Tagg, And The Romney Family

The only bubble that exists is the one around your cognitive ability.

"...the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent..." That would be America's poor...the very poorest of which are ranked at the 84th percentile of wealth worldwide. Oh, the horror!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Whenever I talk to children of the upper classes, the elites or modern America entitled class, I feel like I have entered a bubble so isolated from the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent that I am mystified on how you even get to reality. The article below demonstrates the bubble that shelters some who fail to even see it.

The Philosopher's Stone: THE MYTH OF THE SELF-MADE MAN

Mitt, Tagg, And The Romney Family

The only bubble that exists is the one around your cognitive ability.

"...the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent..." That would be America's poor...the very poorest of which are ranked at the 84th percentile of wealth worldwide. Oh, the horror!

Robert Rector:
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

 

[Rshermr]

Whenever I talk to children of the upper classes, the elites or modern America entitled class, I feel like I have entered a bubble so isolated from the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent that I am mystified on how you even get to reality. The article below demonstrates the bubble that shelters some who fail to even see it.

The Philosopher's Stone: THE MYTH OF THE SELF-MADE MAN

Mitt, Tagg, And The Romney Family

The only bubble that exists is the one around your cognitive ability.

You would not agree with anything a liberal said reguardless of how true it is. Because you are a con tool. My experience would agree. I have rubbed shoulders with the very very rich for many years, and I can tell anyone that they have a very different outlook on life than the middle class. They can live in any city in the world if they do not like what happens to this country, because they are rich. If the economy tubes, they are still rich. No food lines for them. Still eating at the best dining establishments. Still looking at their stock valuations. Still have the yacht.
So, cons like to believe they are part of the great repub wealth society. They are not. They are just a joke to the wealthy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Still have the yacht.
So, cons like to believe they are part of the great repub wealth society. They are not. They are just a joke to the wealthy.

too stupid!! Bill Gates and his father tried to pass a huge estate tax in Washington last cycle. It failed among all the voters. When asked they said they voted against it because they still believed in the American dream. They did not want to get ripped off when they got rich or when their children did!

Class warfare is not natural in a free society , it is Marxist and liberal though!!

 

[eflatminor]

Whenever I talk to children of the upper classes, the elites or modern America entitled class, I feel like I have entered a bubble so isolated from the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent that I am mystified on how you even get to reality. The article below demonstrates the bubble that shelters some who fail to even see it.

The Philosopher's Stone: THE MYTH OF THE SELF-MADE MAN

Mitt, Tagg, And The Romney Family

The only bubble that exists is the one around your cognitive ability.

You would not agree with anything a liberal said reguardless of how true it is. Because you are a con tool. My experience would agree. I have rubbed shoulders with the very very rich for many years, and I can tell anyone that they have a very different outlook on life than the middle class. They can live in any city in the world if they do not like what happens to this country, because they are rich. If the economy tubes, they are still rich. No food lines for them. Still eating at the best dining establishments. Still looking at their stock valuations. Still have the yacht.
So, cons like to believe they are part of the great repub wealth society. They are not. They are just a joke to the wealthy.

Marxist nonsense.

 

[Bfgrn]

The only bubble that exists is the one around your cognitive ability.

"...the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent..." That would be America's poor...the very poorest of which are ranked at the 84th percentile of wealth worldwide. Oh, the horror!

Robert Rector:
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

The scurrilous right is at it again.


Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier (Robert Rector)
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Rector takes full credit for inspiring Romney's welfare attacks. At a Heritage Foundation blogger briefing, he said that "it was my research that was featured in those ads. It was all over those ads." And Rector has dismissed the fact-checkers' debunking of his claims that Obama gutted welfare reform by giving states more flexibility to fulfill welfare's work requirements. Those critical fact-checkers didn't call him up, he said at the Heritage briefing, "because they knew perfectly well that if they talked to me they might run into a fact that would counter their spin." (Rector did not respond to a request for comment made through the Heritage Foundation.)

Rector has made controversial and dubious claims on the issues of poverty and economics for decades. In 1995, for instance, he said to a Washington Post reporter: "Is poverty harmful for childhood? I think not."

Julia Isaacs, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who studies childhood poverty, says there's "considerable evidence" indicating the opposite of what Rector claims. Research shows that children living in poverty perform worse in school, earn less money later in life, and suffer poorer health outcomes (PDF). Poverty is far from the only factor impacting a child's life, but it's a crucial one. "The best available evidence tells us that poverty itself does significantly impact children's lives," Isaacs says.

Over the years, Rector has raised eyebrows for claiming that poor people aren't actually poor if they have air conditioning, a car, a microwave, or other "modern amenities."

Rector's ideas about poverty, work, and wealth don't sit all too well with experts in these fields. But they're good enough, it seems, for Mitt Romney: The only source his welfare ad cites is the Heritage Foundation. ref

 

[Uncensored2008]

So that would make Ronald Reagan the father of progressivism.

Only a retard thinks that higher taxes bring prosperity.

 

[Rshermr]

So that would make Ronald Reagan the father of progressivism.

Only a retard thinks that higher taxes bring prosperity.

Well, lets see. Reagan lowered taxes greatly, brought the unemployment rate fro 7.5% to the highest it has been, ever, since the great republican depression. Got it to 10.8%. That constitutes a really bad economy. He then raised taxes 11 times. So, apparently Reagan was a retard.
Cllinton raised taxes at the beginning of his term. Economy went from bad to outstanding through his two terms.
so, dipshit. Here is the thing. It is not the tax increase, but what you do with the money raised. And both clinton and reagan used it to provide stimulative spending.
so, want to show us all where a bad economy has ever been helped by a tax decrease???

 

[eflatminor]

He then raised taxes 11 times. So, apparently Reagan was a retard.

Disingenuous bullshit. While Reagan made many tax rate changes, some up, some down, overall the rates were decreased dramatically. Consequently, the economy recovered and tax revenues increased.

Now what were you saying about being a retard?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, lets see. Reagan lowered taxes greatly, brought the unemployment rate fro 7.5% to the highest it has been, ever, since the great republican depression. Got it to 10.8%. That constitutes a really bad economy.

once again the integrity free liberal forgets thar the Fed crushed the economy with 21% interest rates then!!

Do you have any character at all??????????????? My suggestion is that you wait till college before you comment here at all!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, lets see. Reagan lowered taxes greatly, brought the unemployment rate fro 7.5% to the highest it has been, ever, since the great republican depression. Got it to 10.8%. That constitutes a really bad economy. He then raised taxes 11 times. So, apparently Reagan was a retard.

ROFL

Revisionist much?

The top tax rate fell from 70% to 28%, of course the very wealthy, like Nancy Pelosi, paid MORE in taxes after the cut, because loopholes were closed, but that isn't a tax increase.

People who claim Reagan raised taxes 11 times are being deliberately dishonest - which is SOP for the left. These "tax increases" you claim, were mostly the ending of sweetheart deductions available to the 1%; which was a pledge by Reagan at the time the top rate was cut. Yes, there were some legitimate increases as well, but the net effect of 8 years of Reagan was a dramatic decrease in tax rates, resulting in an 8 year GDP increase of 35.7% (versus Clinton's 8 year increase of 33.0%)

Cllinton raised taxes at the beginning of his term. Economy went from bad to outstanding through his two terms.

Yet Clinton failed to match Reagan, despite your bullshit.

so, dipshit. Here is the thing. It is not the tax increase, but what you do with the money raised. And both clinton and reagan used it to provide stimulative spending.

Keynes lives.

Not really, just another moron spouting Krugman...

so, want to show us all where a bad economy has ever been helped by a tax decrease???

Don't be daft. With a dramatic decrease in tax rates, Reagan brought an 8 year 35.7% GDP growth, the highest in the last 50 years.

 

[HenryFortune]

So far no one has pointed out the fact that the wealth gap shown in the graph directly corresponds to the existence of the Glass-Steigall Act. From the time it was first written into law until the time Congress, at the behest of the corporate and banking lobbies, began to dismantle it, the gap was at its narrowist. It was also at the time that Congress began to dismantle the Glass-Steigall Act that you began to see all of these economic meltdowns, starting with the Black Monday crash in 1987, continuing with the savings and loan debacle of 1989-91, then with the global economic crisis in 1998, then with Enron in 2001, then with the bailout of the airline industry in 2001 after 9/11 (they needed 15 million dollars to avoid bankruptcy but asked for—and got—150 million), then, finally, with the Wall Street meltdowns of 2008. You would think that all of these financial crises would leave the corporations and the banks destitute, but instead they are bigger and more politically powerful than ever, and that is a direct result of the elimination of the Glass-Stiegall Act, the safeguards of which were meant to (and did) prevent this sort of thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whenever I talk to children of the upper classes, the elites or modern America entitled class, I feel like I have entered a bubble so isolated from the life of the bottom 20 or 40 percent that I am mystified on how you even get to reality. The article below demonstrates the bubble that shelters some who fail to even see it.

The Philosopher's Stone: THE MYTH OF THE SELF-MADE MAN

Mitt, Tagg, And The Romney Family

The only bubble that exists is the one around your cognitive ability.

You would not agree with anything a liberal said reguardless of how true it is. Because you are a con tool. My experience would agree. I have rubbed shoulders with the very very rich for many years, and I can tell anyone that they have a very different outlook on life than the middle class. They can live in any city in the world if they do not like what happens to this country, because they are rich. If the economy tubes, they are still rich. No food lines for them. Still eating at the best dining establishments. Still looking at their stock valuations. Still have the yacht.
So, cons like to believe they are part of the great repub wealth society. They are not. They are just a joke to the wealthy.

I agreed with JFK when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." I think that proves you are full of shit.

By the way, ever find one of those studies proving how stupid I am you want to actually defend?

 

[eflatminor]

So far no one has pointed out the fact that the wealth gap shown in the graph directly corresponds to the existence of the Glass-Steigall Act.

Oh gawd, not another one that believes wealth is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw.

Honestly, other than pure jealousy, why would you care if the wealthiest Americans (a group in constant flux) increased their wealth over time...even if it was to a greater extent than Americans around median income levels (also a group in flux)?

Do you think that if one guy makes himself rich, another man must therefore go with less?

You have much to learn grasshopper...