Let them eat cake...

Topspin said:
still nothing but a weak ass attempt at slander.
Actually Hillary's economics are left of Bill's. So what again do you have a problem with in her plan. Or is it strong woman that give you and the rest of your wussy dem crew the hives.
Click to expand...

You & I have very different ideas of what consititutes a "strong woman." To me, a strong person in general does not change their entire opinion & reasoning on an issue when the weather vane moves slightly.

As for her economics being "to the left of Bill," we agree. I wouldn't say that's a good thing, though.
:clink:
 
Cypress said:
The haves, and the have-mores is my base - George Bush, 2000


Bush boom bah

by Paul Krugman


You know you’re a serious wonk when you wait eagerly each year for the arrival of the CBO’s “Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates.” But it’s much more than a tax report — it’s the single best estimate we have of trends in income and income inequality. The tables (Excel file) are here.

Lots to parse in this report — which only gets us up to 2005 — but here’s one quick calculation. As you may know, for several years the Bush administration and its defenders did a lot of whining about the economy, wondering why they weren’t getting credit for what they insisted was a great economic success.

Well, if you look at the estimates of gains from 2003 to 2005, by position in the income distribution, all becomes clear.

Here’s what the numbers say about percentage gains in after-tax income from 2003 to 2005:

Bottom quintile: 2%
Next quintile: 2.4%
Middle quintile: 3.9%
Fourth quintile: 3.7%
Top quintile: 16%

Top 10%: 20.9%
Top 5%: 27.7%
Top 1%: 43.5%

It was a boom, all right — but only for a few people.

One other thing that’s striking from the report, by the way, is that over the 26 years the estimates span, the only significant gains for the bottom two quintiles, and most of the gains for the middle quintile, took place during the Clinton years.

Exactly why is an interesting question, but the empirical fact is that over the past generation the only good years for lower and middle income families were when a Democrat was in the White House. This is an example of a broader, and honestly mysterious, correlation identified by Larry Bartels in his paper “Partisan politics and the U.S. income distribution.”



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/bush-boom-bah/
Click to expand...

OMG, Krugman is moronic, his own figures show all doing better, but he pretends to pass this off as bad news because rich people did EVEN better.
What do I care if my neighbor makes it big and buys a Ferrrari? So long as I am doing better it makes no difference to me.

Krugman also proves with his numbers that the rich do NOT get richer while the poor get poorer, we ALL got richer just in differing amounts.

This is actually good news. :)
 
Liberano said:
OMG, Krugman is moronic, his own figures show all doing better, but he pretends to pass this off as bad news because rich people did EVEN better.
What do I care if my neighbor makes it big and buys a Ferrrari? So long as I am doing better it makes no difference to me.

Krugman also proves with his numbers that the rich do NOT get richer while the poor get poorer, we ALL got richer just in differing amounts.

This is actually good news. :)
Click to expand...



that's the point. The rich did substantially better than everyone else.

Everyone else barely kept up with inflation.
 
Liberano said:
OMG, Krugman is moronic, his own figures show all doing better, but he pretends to pass this off as bad news because rich people did EVEN better.
What do I care if my neighbor makes it big and buys a Ferrrari? So long as I am doing better it makes no difference to me.

Krugman also proves with his numbers that the rich do NOT get richer while the poor get poorer, we ALL got richer just in differing amounts.

This is actually good news. :)
Click to expand...


And how does cost of living - you know, things like the cost of healthcare, college & energy - fit into the Dano conclusion of "good news" for the lower classes?

Or didn't you factor that in?
 
Cypress the main problem with your train is you guys would be happy if everyone was at 4%.
Your willing to stop the train because the leaders are doing 16%.
It's very easy to jump groups, why remove the carrot from the middle class.
 
Topspin said:
Cypress the main problem with your train is you guys would be happy if everyone was at 4%.
Your willing to stop the train because the leaders are doing 16%.
It's very easy to jump groups, why remove the carrot from the middle class.
Click to expand...


Lets rephrase that con talking point of middle class to Upper Middle Class and above.

The managers of hedge funds got a tax cut equal to the money required for SCHIP. A few thousand at most benefitting from the tax cut vs millions of children .
 
Topspin said:
and yet another childish post from Lori
How bout attempting to put some economics evaluation in if it's not over your head.
Or maybe you disagree the middle class didn't do better under bill than bush.
Click to expand...

Now this is truly funny as everytime I post economic concerns you run around crying out....but third quarter GDP was up.... blah blah blah....

You have yet to discuss economics and the pressures I spelled out for you. But you did call me single. Well done.
 
Topspin said:
Cypress the main problem with your train is you guys would be happy if everyone was at 4%.
Your willing to stop the train because the leaders are doing 16%.
It's very easy to jump groups, why remove the carrot from the middle class.
Click to expand...


Warren Buffet and Paris Hilton are going to be just fine, whether their income increases 4% or 16%.

I'd like to see everyone hitting 16%, but the coal miner and his family take more of a hit when his income is outpaced by inflation, than does Paris Hilton.
 
Topspin said:
inflation has been less than that since your sky started falling but nice try.
Click to expand...

Actually, no it has not. Dollar declined 40% over the past six years. Oil prices up over 400% in the past seven years. Healthcare costs increase annually in the 6-8% range. Grains are up over 40% in the past two years.

Tell us again about inflation toppy.... oh master MBA guru teacherson
 
overall inflation you robber of old ladies. Please save the gov cooked the numbers they came out with the ones you quoted.
All of these are up due to increased demand which increases GDP. LOFL
 
And according to early estimates it will cost us 20% more to heat our homes this winter.
all prices on import goods will rise due to the falling dollar.
Chinese exports is expected to rise between 10 and 20% this year.
Food is expected to rise by about the same amount.

Spinner must be quoting the inflation figures that exclude energy and food.
 
and it'll go from 5 to 6% of family's budgets. Used to be a lot higher.
It's called efficiency, Americans are some engineering mofo's
 
Efficiency aka productivity ?
That means making more product while paying less in labor, among other factors.
 
what a moron, get a dictionary
more mpg in a car, less energy used by a fridge.
you would have struggled anyway in college
 
Topspin said:
what a moron, get a dictionary
more mpg in a car, less energy used by a fridge.
you would have struggled anyway in college
Click to expand...

Top just told someone to get a dictionary! What’s next, Richard Simmons signs in to tell someone to stop being so gay?
 
"Many believe that liberalization and economic growth entail a growth of inequality in a society. Once again, I would like to point out that this is not the most important thing. If a better standerd of living is worth pursuing, then what matters is how well you are period, not how well suited you are in relation to others"

Johan Norberg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top