Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[francoHFW]

Reaganist tax rates are killing the middle class, In the fifties, corps paid 30% of taxes, now 10%- and not giant corps, SMALL BUSINESS. GREAT JOB!. The rich are paying 12% of income in fed income taxes. The dupes know nothing.

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 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 9, 2016
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

All of this is Marxist-Socialist propagandist bullshit.

It begins on the ridiculous premise that "productivity" is solely achieved by "the worker" and that's simply a LIE. Nearly ALL increase in productivity over the past 50 years is the result of technology created and invested in by capitalists. With the advent of computers, productivity has soared in recent years... but you are laying claim to all of that on behalf of "the worker" when "the worker" had nothing to do with it.

and AGAIN.... The "gap between rich and poor" ALWAYS grows in a free market, free enterprise, free society. It's ONLY in a controlled, authoritarian, state-run, Communist-Socialist-Marxist system the difference between rich and poor remains the same.

Look at #3 and #4, dupe. The rich poor gap didn't grow until Reaganism DUH.

Yes it did, you're simply cherry-picking a 30-year period where it didn't grow as much. Your cabal has all the facts and figures parsed out and pieced together to make your case. This is how you convince idiots and morons when the facts aren't on your side.

And there is no need to call it "Reaganism" when it's Free Market Capitalism. That's what you're wanting to kill... so be honest about that and stop trying to tie it to a person you can bash and trash, who isn't here to defend himself anymore. Just be honest, tell the people that you're a Marxist-Socialist who thinks Marxism is the best system in spite of it's horrendous history. No need to invent new names for what you're doing or what you're attacking... we're all grown ups who can handle the truth.

Can you read, stupid? It's the last 35 years DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[francoHFW]

While I believe some people are poor through no fault of their own; I also note that premarital sex, divorce, free love, drugs, drunken behavior, addiction, laziness, poor study habits, a disrespect for society, shunning the elderly, contempt of authority and neglect of spiritual needs come at a price.

Some people ARE born into poverty through no fault of their own. However, you will find a great many of those stories among the wealthiest people in our country. You see, in OUR country, a person has the freedom to achieve any level of wealth they desire through their ingenuity, talent, skill and hard work. That is not the case in Marxist-Socialist countries and it never will be. In THOSE countries, you are pretty much confined to the class you were born into, through no fault of your own. You're not permitted to achieve wealth status, the State intervenes. Your achievements are exploited and your wealth is confiscated by those in political power... the ruling class elite.

Free market capitalism along with free enterprise and a Constitutional republican government, is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever created by man. That's something the Marxist-Socialists don't ever want you to realize. It's their death knell.

And wrecking more in the middle class than ever, dupe. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[Boss]

I post this often to illustrate what has happened to the "middle class family" through the years. Yes, the so-called middle class IS declining... where are they going? Clearly, they aren't becoming lower-income families as those numbers are relatively the same. They are becoming, more and more, part of the upper-income group. This is why statistics showing wage disparity are misleading. Progressive Socialists presume that no one ever leaves their "class" ....you know, like it was in the days of European feudalism. But in America, people are free to achieve any level of wealth status, so the so-called "middle class" are becoming the wealthy.

As the middle class rises up to become wealthy, their incomes are figured in to this "wealth disparity" nonsense, as if they weren't a part of that. You see, it makes it appear the rich are getting richer, when the truth is, the middle class are also getting richer and some of the poor are getting richer too. Granted... it's a real helluva problem to have with all these people getting richer... it completely wipes out any argument for needing a nanny state to control us. The Marxists hate this because they want to have power over individual sovereign.

 

[Markle]

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

As you are attempting to ignore is the fact that it WAS President Clinton who "erected" the Wall of Silence between the 16 odd security agencies. The intention at the time was to limit information leaks from the agencies.

For example: The agency who learned that Muslim's were taking flight lessons, and not particularly interested in landing or taking off, were NOT allowed to communicate that information to the agency that learned that al Qaeda was planning to use aircraft to launch a terrorist attack. Yet another agency that picked up increased "chatter" concerning an attack, could not communicate that to the other agencies and on, and on and on.

There was NO LEGAL WAY for them to connect the dots. It was done in the interest of security. Someone in one agency, would not find out what was known in another.

After President George Bush brought down the Gorelick Wall of Silence.... the pre-Patriot Act "wall" prevented foreign intelligence and criminal investigative communities from collaborating. ... the wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker.

The wall was originally erected by Jamie Gorelick to hide contributions to Clinton's presidential campaign from foreign sources...over $1.2 million was hidden by straw donors....but in turn it also prevented the sharing of foreign and domestic intelligence.

Bush assigned Stanley McChrystal as the commander of Joint Special Operation Command from 2003-2008...Under McChrystal JSOC had a dramatic change in worldwide intelligence....he successfully combined military, domestic and international intelligence to form a worldwide sharing of intelligence data.....and Obama continues JSCO...they were responsible for Bin Laden's demise.

Legislation put forth by President George Walker Bush, and a new oversight agency created after the attack, remedied this fatal error and gathers intelligence from all agencies. After the Bush War on Terror began how many acts of terror did we have on our soil...until President Barack Hussein Obama?

 

[francoHFW]

Can you read? Started with Reaganist tax rates DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. And your solution is to live like you're poor LOLOLOLOLOL. Get some rest.

Ah, your typical liberal hypocrite. I see you are still sending your money to the top, aren't cha? I thought you would have signed off and quit giving your money to those evil rich bastards that escape taxes.

So tell me Frankfart, where will you be sending your money to the top tomorrow? Maybe that Microsoft program you always wanted? How about that X-box video game? Maybe you are going to send your money to pay-per-view to see a movie.

I'm 65, not a young idiot like you.

 

[Markle]

View attachment 80598

I post this often to illustrate what has happened to the "middle class family" through the years. Yes, the so-called middle class IS declining... where are they going? Clearly, they aren't becoming lower-income families as those numbers are relatively the same. They are becoming, more and more, part of the upper-income group. This is why statistics showing wage disparity are misleading. Progressive Socialists presume that no one ever leaves their "class" ....you know, like it was in the days of European feudalism. But in America, people are free to achieve any level of wealth status, so the so-called "middle class" are becoming the wealthy.

As the middle class rises up to become wealthy, their incomes are figured in to this "wealth disparity" nonsense, as if they weren't a part of that. You see, it makes it appear the rich are getting richer, when the truth is, the middle class are also getting richer and some of the poor are getting richer too. Granted... it's a real helluva problem to have with all these people getting richer... it completely wipes out any argument for needing a nanny state to control us. The Marxists hate this because they want to have power over individual sovereign.

Your chart would have more meaning if it included the past six years. Why do you leave them off?

 

[Boss]

Can you read, stupid? It's the last 35 years DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I can read fine, dipshit. Can you?

You showed stats from 1950-1980, where top marginal income tax rates were 71%. There were very few people stupid enough to be a top marginal income earner during that time. After Reagan lowered that rate, many people began earning top marginal incomes again and the gap between them and the low income began to grow. It's not the first time it happened in history by a long shot, but you make it appear that it was.... and it was Reagan's fault.

You're just a dishonest little piece of Commie shit.

 

[Markle]

Statistically speaking, it's a no-brainer to say that there will always be a 1%. It's what that 1% controls in terms of wealth that is the issue.

Apparently, you don't understand what percentages mean. The Top 1% refers to the people who control the top 1% of wealth. The top 1% of wealth is the same regardless of how much wealth there is... it's a percentage of the total.

Here's where there is a difference... In a Communist style system, the Top 1% are the ruling class who also control all political power, all the weapons, all the press, etc. In OUR system, anyone is free to become part of the 1% and anyone can control political power, weapons or access the press.

The "issue" is... you've been brainwashed by socialists trying to promote Marxism. That's the precursor to Communism. The reason is, because they want to be the ruling class or 1%. And they want you to submit your liberty and power to them. You've bought into their rhetoric because you're selfish and think that people who have more than you don't deserve it. You think that somehow, if you support this War on the 1%, you will eventually see some kind of windfall of all that wealth.... the socialists who are feeding you this crap have a name for you.... Useful Idiots.

No, I promote a mix of capitalism and socialism that you find in other first-world countries whose populations haven't been stupefied by the constant barrage of bullshit like you espouse.

As you know, or should, the countries you point to as being Socialist, are not. They are, however, highly taxed and regulated capitalist democracies.

Do you actually teach? Really?

 

[Ame®icano]

Triggered yet?

You don't get it. Every single thing that drives leftist crazy has my support.

You just made my morning. Keep whining.

Yup, too bad about the wrecked middle class and the country, party first dupe. Walmart is a horrible place to work, with most workers in poverty. ANOTHER Reaganist RW nightmare.

What are you smoking dude?

In my post I am clearly talking about illegals, and in your reply you're talking about Walmart and Reagan.

You weren't TALKING about anything, just spamming hate bs propaganda. All Trump cares about is cutting his own taxes and starting his new propaganda channel...lol

Regardless what thread is about, your answer is the same. But no, that's not propaganda.

What, you didn't get new talking points, so you're recycling the old ones?

Facts don't change, dupe.

Leftist lies never change, shitstain.

 

[francoHFW]

View attachment 80598

I post this often to illustrate what has happened to the "middle class family" through the years. Yes, the so-called middle class IS declining... where are they going? Clearly, they aren't becoming lower-income families as those numbers are relatively the same. They are becoming, more and more, part of the upper-income group. This is why statistics showing wage disparity are misleading. Progressive Socialists presume that no one ever leaves their "class" ....you know, like it was in the days of European feudalism. But in America, people are free to achieve any level of wealth status, so the so-called "middle class" are becoming the wealthy.

As the middle class rises up to become wealthy, their incomes are figured in to this "wealth disparity" nonsense, as if they weren't a part of that. You see, it makes it appear the rich are getting richer, when the truth is, the middle class are also getting richer and some of the poor are getting richer too. Granted... it's a real helluva problem to have with all these people getting richer... it completely wipes out any argument for needing a nanny state to control us. The Marxists hate this because they want to have power over individual sovereign.

Your graph is crap. lol. Who's it really from?

They did not increase prices store by store based on competition. Walmart increases their prices across the board whether there is competition or not. Their store prices reflect their internet prices.

Huh. I din't think they even had "internet prices" in the 80's and 90's. Can you link to that? Because that was when the prices started going up at Walmart, after all the local competition was gone.

If you're talking about places like Bob's sewing machine shop, Earls coin shop, Eleanor's dress shop, those places closed down long ago whether there was a Walmart in the area or not. Yes, larger chains took over and we are a throw away society today. Those kinds of places are still around, but there are much less of them. It has nothing to do with Walmart, because the businesses you mentioned above, Walmart doesn't even participate in.

Really? Walmart doesn't sell clothes? They don't sell hardware? They don't sell appliances? What the fuck does the Walmart where you live sell?!?! grain and feed?!?!?

Yes, they priced them out of business. That's what businesses do. The cheaper price gets the business, but you can't say that all at once, Walmart didn't increased their prices due to lack of competition. I'm sure they increase their prices all the time. Taxes go up, pay scales go up, health insurance goes way up, the suppliers Walmart gets their merchandise increases the cost of their products, as a truck driver, I can tell you that our prices went way up because of all the environmental crap we now have to deal with.

Yeah. Sure. you're right. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that none of those price increases started until after the local competition they were trying to put out of business was actually out of business...

...just a coincidence...

Really? Walmart doesn't sell clothes? They don't sell hardware? They don't sell appliances? What the fuck does the Walmart where you live sell?!?! grain and feed?!?!?

You said things like tailoring. Walmart has very few large appliances. They do sell microwaves, blenders and coffee machines. Nobody buys large appliances at Walmart.

Yeah. Sure. you're right. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that none of those price increases started until after the local competition they were trying to put out of business was actually out of business...

...just a coincidence...

Yeah, I'm sure you're telling the truth. And when you send a link to your claim, then we will talk about it.

You're in a real RW news blackout.

 

[francoHFW]

Statistically speaking, it's a no-brainer to say that there will always be a 1%. It's what that 1% controls in terms of wealth that is the issue.

Apparently, you don't understand what percentages mean. The Top 1% refers to the people who control the top 1% of wealth. The top 1% of wealth is the same regardless of how much wealth there is... it's a percentage of the total.

Here's where there is a difference... In a Communist style system, the Top 1% are the ruling class who also control all political power, all the weapons, all the press, etc. In OUR system, anyone is free to become part of the 1% and anyone can control political power, weapons or access the press.

The "issue" is... you've been brainwashed by socialists trying to promote Marxism. That's the precursor to Communism. The reason is, because they want to be the ruling class or 1%. And they want you to submit your liberty and power to them. You've bought into their rhetoric because you're selfish and think that people who have more than you don't deserve it. You think that somehow, if you support this War on the 1%, you will eventually see some kind of windfall of all that wealth.... the socialists who are feeding you this crap have a name for you.... Useful Idiots.

No, I promote a mix of capitalism and socialism that you find in other first-world countries whose populations haven't been stupefied by the constant barrage of bullshit like you espouse.

As you know, or should, the countries you point to as being Socialist, are not. They are, however, highly taxed and regulated capitalist democracies.

Do you actually teach? Really?

I did, Socialism is not communism DUHHHHHHHHHHH. "We're all socialists now"- Finland PM when ACA passed.

 

[Markle]

Can you read, stupid? It's the last 35 years DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I can read fine, dipshit. Can you?

You showed stats from 1950-1980, where top marginal income tax rates were 71%. There were very few people stupid enough to be a top marginal income earner during that time. After Reagan lowered that rate, many people began earning top marginal incomes again and the gap between them and the low income began to grow. It's not the first time it happened in history by a long shot, but you make it appear that it was.... and it was Reagan's fault.

You're just a dishonest little piece of Commie shit.

It isn't that few people were stupid enough to earn enough to pay in the 70% tax bracket, there were few people who earned that much, that net income was so extraordinarily high and don't forget all the deductions available then which are not today.

 

[francoHFW]

Can you read, stupid? It's the last 35 years DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I can read fine, dipshit. Can you?

You showed stats from 1950-1980, where top marginal income tax rates were 71%. There were very few people stupid enough to be a top marginal income earner during that time. After Reagan lowered that rate, many people began earning top marginal incomes again and the gap between them and the low income began to grow. It's not the first time it happened in history by a long shot, but you make it appear that it was.... and it was Reagan's fault.

You're just a dishonest little piece of Commie shit.

That's why CEOs earn 300x the worker now, 23x in the 50's. High top tax rates only works, DUMBASS dupe.

 

[Ame®icano]

You don't. The fact is, we just need to keep doing what needs to be done to get living wage legislation passed. Let them bitch. Their bitching is irrelevant. You're never going to "convince" them. They'll just have to put up with the reality that they don't get to pay slave wages.

Translation: We're going to wave the old tried and true "living wage" carrot on the stick once again, like we've been doing for 82 years. Studies show that works well on low-information voters. When we gain enough political power from this, we will rule with an iron fist and cram whatever we want down the throat of America.

Exactly. Lefties care about entitlements, wage, equal rights, gun control, etc. only when they have no voting power. They could have solved all these issues at the same time they forced ACA on us, but they didn't.

Nobody expected Scott Brown, and the middle of a GOP world depression is no time for tax hikes on the bloated rich etc, dupe. ACA took the whole 2 months of control. And more...Thanks to GOP stalling/hypocrisy.

Right, Massachusetts elected Scott Brown and fucked you up. Otherwise we would see more of leftists shameless tricks and lies and shoving laws down out throats. ACA was just enough to see right thru you, imagine if there was more...

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, too bad about the wrecked middle class and the country, party first dupe. Walmart is a horrible place to work, with most workers in poverty. ANOTHER Reaganist RW nightmare.

What are you smoking dude?

In my post I am clearly talking about illegals, and in your reply you're talking about Walmart and Reagan.

You weren't TALKING about anything, just spamming hate bs propaganda. All Trump cares about is cutting his own taxes and starting his new propaganda channel...lol

Regardless what thread is about, your answer is the same. But no, that's not propaganda.

What, you didn't get new talking points, so you're recycling the old ones?

Facts don't change, dupe.

Leftist lies never change, shitstain.

Me, Masters in History- You masters in GOP brainwash. Example of "leftist" lie? lol

 

[Boss]

View attachment 80598

I post this often to illustrate what has happened to the "middle class family" through the years. Yes, the so-called middle class IS declining... where are they going? Clearly, they aren't becoming lower-income families as those numbers are relatively the same. They are becoming, more and more, part of the upper-income group. This is why statistics showing wage disparity are misleading. Progressive Socialists presume that no one ever leaves their "class" ....you know, like it was in the days of European feudalism. But in America, people are free to achieve any level of wealth status, so the so-called "middle class" are becoming the wealthy.

As the middle class rises up to become wealthy, their incomes are figured in to this "wealth disparity" nonsense, as if they weren't a part of that. You see, it makes it appear the rich are getting richer, when the truth is, the middle class are also getting richer and some of the poor are getting richer too. Granted... it's a real helluva problem to have with all these people getting richer... it completely wipes out any argument for needing a nanny state to control us. The Marxists hate this because they want to have power over individual sovereign.

Your chart would have more meaning if it included the past six years. Why do you leave them off?

Well the chart is not mine... I didn't create it. It's from 2011, but it shows a history of the previous 42 years and the arguments haven't changed since 2011. We still hear the same mindless rhetoric from the Marxist-Socialist Class Warfare Progressives. I imagine, an updated chart would show a continued pattern as we see here. The point being, the so-called "middle class" are the new Wealthy.

People change and move in economic class all the time... every day, more middle class people become upper-income people. This is an important dynamic that is completely ignored when we look at this group vs. that group. The Marxist wants you to ignore this and pretend that no one ever leaves their class. That way, it looks like the wealthy are killing the middle class and the poor are simply stagnating.

 

[Boss]

That's why CEOs earn 300x the worker now, 23x in the 50's.

Yes... likely due to the 71% top marginal tax rates in 1950. Smart people don't care about earning a high income if it's going to be taxed to death... they'd rather have stock or perks other than earned income.

And CEOs are paid by the Capitalist. There is no logical or purposeful reason for the Capitalist to pay a CEO more than they are worth. The Capitalist's goal is to make the most profit... wasting money you don't need to on a CEO is counter-intuitive to that objective... so it doesn't even make rational sense... except in the mind of a complete dummy.

 

[Boss]

Your graph is crap. lol. Who's it really from?

Sorry you feel like it's "crap" ...you'll need to take that up with the Census Bureau.

 

[Ame®icano]

What are you smoking dude?

In my post I am clearly talking about illegals, and in your reply you're talking about Walmart and Reagan.

You weren't TALKING about anything, just spamming hate bs propaganda. All Trump cares about is cutting his own taxes and starting his new propaganda channel...lol

Regardless what thread is about, your answer is the same. But no, that's not propaganda.

What, you didn't get new talking points, so you're recycling the old ones?

Facts don't change, dupe.

Leftist lies never change, shitstain.

Me, Masters in History- You masters in GOP brainwash. Example of "leftist" lie? lol

Every single agenda pushed by the left is based on a lie.

Example? Let's see...

War on poverty.
War on women.
War on blacks.
Gun control.
Global warming.
Stimulus/jobs.
ACA
Immigration.
Wage inequality stats.
Rape stats.
White privilege.
Homo rights.
Trans rights.

Pick a topic. It begin with a liberal lies.

Every. Single. One.

 

[francoHFW]

You don't. The fact is, we just need to keep doing what needs to be done to get living wage legislation passed. Let them bitch. Their bitching is irrelevant. You're never going to "convince" them. They'll just have to put up with the reality that they don't get to pay slave wages.

Translation: We're going to wave the old tried and true "living wage" carrot on the stick once again, like we've been doing for 82 years. Studies show that works well on low-information voters. When we gain enough political power from this, we will rule with an iron fist and cram whatever we want down the throat of America.

Exactly. Lefties care about entitlements, wage, equal rights, gun control, etc. only when they have no voting power. They could have solved all these issues at the same time they forced ACA on us, but they didn't.

Nobody expected Scott Brown, and the middle of a GOP world depression is no time for tax hikes on the bloated rich etc, dupe. ACA took the whole 2 months of control. And more...Thanks to GOP stalling/hypocrisy.

Right, Massachusetts elected Scott Brown and fucked you up. Otherwise we would see more of leftists shameless tricks and lies and shoving laws down out throats. ACA was just enough to see right thru you, imagine if there was more...

Spoken like a perfect hater dupe. So you lov mindless obstruction, bad gov't and giving away everything to the rich? Idiot.