Why I Could Never Be GOP or Libertarian

[Uncensored2008]

And the real GDP per capita grew by 68%. It means if it were not for increasing inequality, the median incomes would grow 4-5 times faster.

So you acknowledge that ALL are better off, but since some did even better than you, you're consumed by envy, rage, and greed?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those 2 numbers actualy show a decline in the median household income, when adjusted for inflation.

They are in constant dollars.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The earnings of male workers in the middle of the income ladder are lower today than they were almost 40 years ago.

That's false. The median income in 1972 was $45,196

In 1973, the median male worker earned just over $49,000 when adjusted for inflation, while in 2010 that worker made about $1,500 less.

That's a flat out lie.

Median Household Income History in the United States (Using your buddies links, for fairness.)

Yet, in the same period, the output of the economy has more than doubled, and the productivity of workers has risen steadily.

We've already shown that you lie, so how can you have a point?

meanwhile

“Income inequality in this country is just getting worse. And that is not a recipe for stable economic growth when the rich are getting richer and everybody else is being left behind.

Since 1980, about 5 percent of annual national income has shifted from the middle class to the nation’s richest households. That means the wealthiest 5,934 households last year enjoyed an additional $650 billion.

Disputes over what constitutes economic fairness are moving to center stage amid a near-stagnant U.S. economy saddled with 9.1 percent unemployment yet boasting record corporate profits.

Growing Income Gap May Leave U.S. Vulnerable - Bloomberg

So the fact is that income has risen, and purchasing power has dramatically risen, but you are filled with envy and greed, right?

 

[Full-Auto]

The earnings of male workers in the middle of the income ladder are lower today than they were almost 40 years ago.

That's false. The median income in 1972 was $45,196

In 1973, the median male worker earned just over $49,000 when adjusted for inflation, while in 2010 that worker made about $1,500 less.

That's a flat out lie.

Median Household Income History in the United States (Using your buddies links, for fairness.)

Yet, in the same period, the output of the economy has more than doubled, and the productivity of workers has risen steadily.

We've already shown that you lie, so how can you have a point?

meanwhile

“Income inequality in this country is just getting worse. And that is not a recipe for stable economic growth when the rich are getting richer and everybody else is being left behind.

Since 1980, about 5 percent of annual national income has shifted from the middle class to the nation’s richest households. That means the wealthiest 5,934 households last year enjoyed an additional $650 billion.

Disputes over what constitutes economic fairness are moving to center stage amid a near-stagnant U.S. economy saddled with 9.1 percent unemployment yet boasting record corporate profits.

Growing Income Gap May Leave U.S. Vulnerable - Bloomberg

So the fact is that income has risen, and purchasing power has dramatically risen, but you are filled with envy and greed, right?

He has lied so often he entered Rderp levels

 

[ilia25]

And the real GDP per capita grew by 68%. It means if it were not for increasing inequality, the median incomes would grow 4-5 times faster.

So you acknowledge that ALL are better off, but since some did even better than you, you're consumed by envy, rage, and greed?

I wasn't talking about me, you idiot. It was 90% of Americans who saw their income growth lagging because a disproportionaly large chunk of additional GDP ended up in the hands of the richest.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And the real GDP per capita grew by 68%. It means if it were not for increasing inequality, the median incomes would grow 4-5 times faster.

So you acknowledge that ALL are better off, but since some did even better than you, you're consumed by envy, rage, and greed?

I wasn't talking about me, you idiot. It was 90% of Americans who saw their income growth lagging because a disproportionaly large chunk of additional GDP ended up in the hands of the richest.

Try measuring it as a percentage of income instead of in total dollars .

 

[Uncensored2008]

I wasn't talking about me, you idiot. It was 90% of Americans who saw their income growth lagging because a disproportionaly large chunk of additional GDP ended up in the hands of the richest.

Actually, what is demonstrated by the median income chart is the range is pretty stable since 1967. A slow, steady rise.

All boats are rising, that some are rising faster than others is what seems to anger you of the left.

Clearly that is based upon your envy, rage, and greed: which are the fundamental elements of the left.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Those 2 numbers actualy show a decline in the median household income, when adjusted for inflation.

They are in constant dollars.

ok then they show a tiny increase over the last 30 years.

I didn't realize they were already adjusted (i was going to say DAYUM people used to be really rich, lol)

 

[Mr.Nick]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

You want a dictated economy and you want a dictated society...

You believe our government should play a central role in everyones lives and manifest outcomes...

If you didn't you wouldn't be bashing classical liberalism and real conservatism..

In short you want to be a "big boy" but have all the comforts of a 12-year-old living under mommy and daddies roof, but just as long as it is YOUR utopia...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Try measuring it as a percentage of income instead of in total dollars .

Dollars mean little.

To create an "inflation adjusted" figure, currency must be pegged to something as a constant. WHAT it is pegged to is going to significantly alter the results. What was $1 worth in 1967? The real answer is "depends on what you were buying." If you were buying a computer, $1 in 1967 was worth a fraction of what a dollar today is worth. Clearly this is a lousy comparison, as computing has been revolutionized. Contrast that with gold, and we have the opposite. Gold in the last few years has inflated at a ridiculous level. Peg it to the CPI and we get skewed results as well.

So the real measure of wealth is the purchasing power of an hour's labor, not an inflation adjusted dollar. The dollar will never offer an accurate accounting. Leftists don't like this measure, as it fails to support the class warfare that the left uses to convince people to abandon individual liberty in favor of rule by the elite.

Stripped of all bullshit, what the left offers is nothing more than a return to feudalism. A monied elite who are to care for the serf caste. Government lords and ladies who provide health care as they see fit for those of their estates. Who may raid Gibson and force manufacturing from US shores, but will provide 99 weeks of unemployment for the serfs of their estate. Stripped of weapons, the serfs are dependent on the monied elite of the government to provide such protection as they see fit.

No wonder the left loves the Muslim world so, they share a common vision of a world in the dark ages.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know what point you think you've corrected, but the facts remain. For the past 30 years the median incomes stagnated

The median incime in 2008 was 14.65% higher than in 1979. That's "stagnant"?

And the real GDP per capita grew by 68%. It means if it were not for increasing inequality, the median incomes would grow 4-5 times faster.

Only if median income would "normally" be tied/related to GDP growth.
Show this to be true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And the real GDP per capita grew by 68%. It means if it were not for increasing inequality, the median incomes would grow 4-5 times faster.

So you acknowledge that ALL are better off, but since some did even better than you, you're consumed by envy, rage, and greed?

I wasn't talking about me, you idiot. It was 90% of Americans who saw their income growth lagging because a disproportionaly large chunk of additional GDP ended up in the hands of the richest.

Compare the 'additional GDP' that ended up on the hands of the richest and the investments made by the richest that created that GDP growth.

 

[Mr.Nick]

And our GDP doesn't mean shit anymore considering the formula used and the fact our economy is disorganized - more like economic anarchy..

In theory the treasury could just print more money which would show GDP growth...

 

[starcraftzzz]

Yes like all conservatives you don't care about reality

So your reality is defined by Thinkprogress?

It shows.

The recession ended right after the New Deal started. In fact the period during the New Deal saw the largest economic growth ever recorded in America

Well, there you go folks, there never was a great depression. The "recession" ended once his holiness was in office....
ROFL
The effect of having hate sites define your reality.
You're a fucking moron.

GDP growth in 1934 was 11%, 9% in 35 13% in 36, and 5% in 38
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
So the problem here is that you are 100% ignorant on all matters but for some reason think you have a clue when in reality a 5 year old knows more then you

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Well, it must certainly be because liberals/progressives/marxists/socialists Care more about the people....................workers of the world unite !!!!!!!!

too funny

 

[starcraftzzz]

I wasn't talking about me, you idiot. It was 90% of Americans who saw their income growth lagging because a disproportionaly large chunk of additional GDP ended up in the hands of the richest.

Actually, what is demonstrated by the median income chart is the range is pretty stable since 1967. A slow, steady rise.

All boats are rising, that some are rising faster than others is what seems to anger you of the left.

And in reality we find that like always you are wrong and have no clue what you are talking about
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones
^After tax income since 1979 for the bottom 80% of Americans has decreased. For the top 1% of Americans their income has skyrocketed by over 120%.
Trends in the Distribution of After-Tax Income
^rich richer poor poorer.
The poorest 25% of people saw their income decline by 16% from 1977-1994, while the richest 1% saw their income climb 72%
Huge disparity in share of total wealth gain since 1983 | Economic Policy Institute
^Since 1983 the bottom 60% of Americans have seen their total wealth decline by 7.5%

Clearly that is based upon your envy, rage, and greed: which are the fundamental elements of the left.

Yes that is right wanting to increase peoples living standards, and make the economy better is just envy rage and greed. That is right wanting to tax the very rich whom pay less taxes than the poor in order to provide all Americans with the necessities of life is totally greedy...DUmbass

 

[Uncensored2008]

GDP growth in 1934 was 11%, 9% in 35 13% in 36, and 5% in 38
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
So the problem here is that you are 100% ignorant on all matters but for some reason think you have a clue when in reality a 5 year old knows more then you

You're quite the dishonest troll. In fact, GNP did not reach 1930 levels until 1941. 11 years to simply break even.

1933 was the depth of the depression, followed by 36, which despite your claim had negative GNP.

GDP wouldn't be used as a measurement of activity for another 40 years.

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2007/02 February/0207_history_article.pdf

 

[sealybobo]

Well, it must certainly be because liberals/progressives/marxists/socialists Care more about the people....................workers of the world unite !!!!!!!!

too funny

For me to become a Republican, I would either have to become incredibly stupid or incredibly rich. And even if I became incredibly rich, I don't think that would turn me greedy like it has the rich that are in the GOP. I would still stay a progressive liberal like Dukakis or Sean Penn.

Even if I was making $250,000 a year and I realized that the Democrats were going to cost me an extra $5K, I would still vote Democratic. And ultimately, that is all the Democrats do to people who earn more than $250K.

And all we ask people who make over a $1 million a year is to pay the same tax rate as the rest of us. If I made that much, I would not argue. And many don't. Just guys like Mitt, Newt, Rush, Hannity, Paul Ryan, Boehner, Mitch McConnell & the Koch brothers.

They want to change the rules of the game in which they became successful so it benefits them more but makes it harder for the rest of us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, it must certainly be because liberals/progressives/marxists/socialists Care more about the people....................workers of the world unite !!!!!!!!

too funny

For me to become a Republican....

...you would have to grow a brain and mortgage your soul for an ounce of intellectual honesty.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, it must certainly be because liberals/progressives/marxists/socialists Care more about the people....................workers of the world unite !!!!!!!!

too funny

For me to become a Republican....

...you would have to grow a brain and mortgage your soul for an ounce of intellectual honesty.

so accustomed are we to hearing the Right – a movement that historically opposed women's sufferage and black civil rights and still seeks to quash workers' right to organize and gay and lesbian Americans' right to marry– claim to be defenders of our liberties.

One has to acknowledge the conservative messaging machine for branding its ideological preferences with the rhetoric of “freedom.” But it's nothing new. During the 2009 healthcare debate, when John F. Kennedy introduced the Medicare bill, Ronald Reagan “warned that if Medicare became law, there was a real possibility that the federal government would control where Americans go and what they do for a living.”

Reagan told the nation, “If you don’t [stop Medicare] . . . one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

I wasn't stupid enough to buy that shit then or now. But you are. I guess the world will have idiots like you in 100 years so I guess I should just get used to it.