While liberals scream "Trickle down economics didn't work", the facts tell a different story

[Little-Acorn]

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

So, the income of the next-highest 20% group, was NOT 5 percent higher in 1984 than it was in 1982?
Can you prove this?

(Hint: He can't. The chart is correct. He's just trying to distract attention from the fact that his entire party has been wrong since the 1980s.)

 

[Siete]

For those who continue to believe liberals are telling the truth:

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

[/QUOTE]


Reagan added 189% to the National Debt too ... ya freakin' idget.


Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase in the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

• FY 1989 - $255 billion.
• FY 1988 - $252 billion.
• FY 1987 - $225 billion.
• FY 1986 - $297 billion.
• FY 1985 - $256 billion.
• FY 1984 - $195 billion.
• FY 1983 - $235 billion.
• FY 1982 - $144 billion.

 

[francoHFW]

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 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 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
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

 

[BluesLegend]

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 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 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
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

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

 

[guno]

and what years were the best for the country and middle class and the biggest growth of the middle class.What was the tax rate,,,,,,hint before 1980

 

[edthecynic]

Here you go.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Do you understand what a link is? I actually did search for your reference and it couldn't be found. So where did you get it from? Please share the link.

He didn't link to it because there is no "Table 678."

https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/pop.pdf

TRANSLATION: I will look in only the first section of the 2007 StatAbs. Then I will use my mistake and failure as an excuse to pretend you failed instead.

Found it, and Table 678 shows Completely different info.

Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2007

Jumping from 21k to 33.5k from '80 to '90 wasn't an increase?

Except it doesn't say that. The bottom 20% went from $22,581 in 1980 to $22,244 in 1985, after which St Ronnie abandoned trickle down.

 

[Siete]

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 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 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
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

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

 

[kiwiman127]

Here you go.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

Here's one from Pew Research using figures from the Department of Labor:

Link: For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades

I would care to bet, that there isn't a economist alive, who isn't a political hack, that would agree with Acorn's analysis.

 

[Timmy]

Increasing taxes and allowing an incompetent government which managed to rack up a $20 trillion dollar debt without anything to show for it spend it, is beyond stupid. Hence Hillary and her tax and spend dumb asses can pound sand.

And what was spending like under demigod Reagan?

 

[BluesLegend]

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 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 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
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

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

 

[Timmy]

Let see not forget Ronnies war on unions . Less unions = less middle class .

 

[NYcarbineer]

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

In our country we like to look at the whole truth, not some propagandistic half truth.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Except it doesn't say that. The bottom 20% went from $22,581 in 1980 to $22,244 in 1985, after which St Ronnie abandoned trickle down.

So we have one liberal who agrees my chart is correct, while trying furiously to examine one tree and simultaneously ignore the forest. That's progress. I think. For liberals, anyway.

Perhaps the rest of you liberals who say you don't understand the data or how to find it, should ask this one about it. He found it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 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 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
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

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

Every time Republicans cut taxes, the deficits explode.

 

[BluesLegend]

Increasing taxes and allowing an incompetent government which managed to rack up a $20 trillion dollar debt without anything to show for it spend it, is beyond stupid. Hence Hillary and her tax and spend dumb asses can pound sand.

And what was spending like under demigod Reagan?

What century are you living in fool, never mind deflecting to Reagan was dumb in the first place. $20 trillion heading for $40 trillion, do you think we can go on borrowing money forever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except it doesn't say that. The bottom 20% went from $22,581 in 1980 to $22,244 in 1985, after which St Ronnie abandoned trickle down.

So we have one liberal who agrees my chart is correct, while trying furiously to examine one tree and simultaneously ignore the forest. That's progress. I think. For liberals, anyway.

Perhaps the rest of you liberals who say you don't understand the data or how to find it, should ask this one about it. He found it.

Your chart doesn't prove anything about trickle down economics. All it proves is that when economies contract, wages fall, and when economies expand, wages rise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Increasing taxes and allowing an incompetent government which managed to rack up a $20 trillion dollar debt without anything to show for it spend it, is beyond stupid. Hence Hillary and her tax and spend dumb asses can pound sand.

And what was spending like under demigod Reagan?

What century are you living in fool, never mind deflecting to Reagan was dumb in the first place. $20 trillion heading for $40 trillion, do you think we can go on borrowing money forever.

The topic of this thread is Reagan, fuckwit.

 

[BluesLegend]

I keep hearing from liberals (no surprise), that the economics Reagan relied upon, didn't work. They claim that they benefited only the top few percent of the population.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, took office in 1981, and his first budget become effective in 1982.

How did people's income change from 1982 onward? Don't count "increases" due to inflation, count the REAL increase in what they earned.

In fact, ALL segments of the population increased significantly after Reagan passed his tax cuts, not just "the rich".

Another liberal lie refuted.

Sorry, libs, this blows your entire "Conservatism doesn't work" meme. In fact, conservatism provides more prosperity for ALL income groups, than any other.

(Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, Table 678 and calculations)

View attachment 91241

Sure for a little while, but just made for inequality and the ruin of the nonrich and the country in the long run, and it rolls on, thanks to the greedy idiot GOP rich and the dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 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 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
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

You people want everyone to be poor and dependent on government, its not fair that some people work hard and become wealthy.

and dumbasses like you believe tax cuts are the answer to everything under the sun.

Oh God the irony, and increasing taxes so the government can piss it all away on nothing that's your big idea talk about brain dead.

Every time Republicans cut taxes, the deficits explode.

Cut spending idiot its not rocket science. While you are at it get your millions of welfare deadbeats off their big fat lard asses and stop mooching off the rest of us.

 

[BluesLegend]

Increasing taxes and allowing an incompetent government which managed to rack up a $20 trillion dollar debt without anything to show for it spend it, is beyond stupid. Hence Hillary and her tax and spend dumb asses can pound sand.

And what was spending like under demigod Reagan?

What century are you living in fool, never mind deflecting to Reagan was dumb in the first place. $20 trillion heading for $40 trillion, do you think we can go on borrowing money forever.

The topic of this thread is Reagan, fuckwit.

You're dumb as a brick never mind.

 

[Care4all]

top ceo salaries went to 300 times the average worker since Reagan...and workers gained near nothing... yup trickle trump down worked really great!

Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical Workers: Pay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent