SF: For future reference

[uscitizen]

Duhla you don't understand it.
House of cards, get a better joke. We economically are the envy of the world. More countries (china) are immitating our business model every year. WE're so rich our Poverty stricken are middle class in 90% of the world.

Yep that is why the dollar is falling to record lows....

 

[Cancel7]

Americans WERE loyal to the rich when we thought we would be kept in the loop. Now we see their intention is give away our jobs to anyone who can sneak across our border. Fuck the rich. They're rich, they'll be fine. Fuck the globalist policies they espouse to cement their oligarchy.

I agree with you in spirit here, but I don't think anyone is going to win the Presidency on a "fuck the rich" platform. (I could be wrong about that though) But, we don't have to kiss their asses as Topper would have it either.

 

[cawacko]

Yes, that's the con.

A poll showed that about half of Americans believed they will one day be in the top 2%. That same poll showed that 28% believed they were already there.

It doesn't really matter what people believe.

I think its great that many people think they will get into the top 2% and wish that number were higher. Like most things in life you will not get into the top 2% without a dream, goals, hard work (and luck). (There are obvious exceptions - inheritance, lottery winners etc.)

Not making the top 2% does not make one a failure but everyone should strive to be the best they can be. If that means they make the top 2% then god bless them.

The top 2% is not a static number. People have made and lost fortunes. People have had amazing years which place them in the top 2% for that year but they never reach it again.

 

[Topspin]

Hillary is infanately smarter than the turbo-libs here. She courted Johm Macke really hard and landed his endorsement.

 

[Cancel7]

I think its great that many people think they will get into the top 2% and wish that number were higher. Like most things in life you will not get into the top 2% without a dream, goals, hard work (and luck). (There are obvious exceptions - inheritance, lottery winners etc.)

Not making the top 2% does not make one a failure but everyone should strive to be the best they can be. If that means they make the top 2% then god bless them.

The top 2% is not a static number. People have made and lost fortunes. People have had amazing years which place them in the top 2% for that year but they never reach it again.

Yeah, it's great that 28% are stupid enough to think they're already there, and the rest of them think they're going to get there. It keeps them voting for politicians whose top issue is killing the estate tax, which none of them will ever pay. It's great to be a sucker, and when you are a sucker, there will always be someone there to take you.

 

[Cancel7]

Hillary is infanately smarter than the turbo-libs here. She courted Johm Macke really hard and landed his endorsement.

Yeah, Hillary is so much smarter than we are, that she voted for a war that we said was BULLSHIT.

She really outsmarted us there. Not to mention all of the dead people. Boy, are they impressed with her "smarts".

 

[Cancel7]

I will make an exception and make myself a gin and tonic with a lime twist...maybe then I will begin to understand where it is you are coming from...so I take it a kiss on the cheek is out of the question...oh well...been there and done that...ya win some ya lose some...life is a b****...lol

What do you want a kiss from me for anyhow? I smell and I don't know how to put on makeup, and my legs are hairy, remember? Boy, my stock has really risen overnight. It's almost enough to make me believe in Top's half-assed theories. Maybe by tomorrow, I will be a millionaire!

 

[cawacko]

Yep that is why the dollar is falling to record lows....

So because the U.S. is the wealthiest nation on Earth and our poverty stricken is better off than a majority of the rest of the world it is causing our dollar to drop?

Do you recommend Bernake do what he can to send our economy into a depression so that the dollar will rise?

 

[Battleborne]

Lol...

What do you want a kiss from me for anyhow? I smell and I don't know how to put on makeup, and my legs are hairy, remember? Boy, my stock has really risen overnight. It's almost enough to make me believe in Top's half-assed theories. Maybe by tomorrow, I will be a millionaire!

Hey girl I did not ask to bed ya just a kiss on the cheek for giving you some slack...don't get a fat head..your politics still suck...but I place the blame on your professors of the past...move into a new and clear world..then maybe we can talk seriously..or not!

 

[Lao Tse]

I agree with you in spirit here, but I don't think anyone is going to win the Presidency on a "fuck the rich" platform. (I could be wrong about that though) But, we don't have to kiss their asses as Topper would have it either.

It's not really "fuck the rich", we were just getting emotional. It's "does citizenship occur any benefit at all in this nation?", is it fair to be told we cannot compete for jobs because our cost of living is higher here, because we're gouged on all products and services around the world? We can't be asked to take it at both ends: Asked to pay more for things because we're the richest nation, then put out of work because it takes more money to live here, in the richest nation on earth. It is a systematic plan to decimate american people in favor of non american workers in the global economy, putting the needs of foreigners above americans is how our government is gaining the allegiance of foreign regimes for their nationbuilding plans. They're quite literally, selling us out to enhance their own futures.

 

[Topspin]

Many fight education Duhla as you are doing here, that's why it's so easy to get to the top. So many whiners don't try hard.

 

[Topspin]

those are some old school dem talking points Duhla you need to check back with moveon.turbo-lib

 

[uscitizen]

is moveon still alive ? Not been to their site in over a yera or two.

but lots of good stuff on truthout...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Basic arithmetic dumbass. Do I really have to explain this?

It gives the number for starting and ending points:

2005: $46,326

1967: $35,379

The trend crosses at almost exactly $40,000 in 1980, the year reagan was elected. $40,000 is close enough.

Now, do the math.

The average rate of increase ($$ per year) was higher in the years before reagan, than after reagan.


edit: sorry about the dumbass comment. I shouldn't get mad about this. Its pretty funny actually

1) Reagan took office in 1981

2) When you are calculating averages... "close enough" is bullshit. Especially when some dumbass is trying to say that the middle class has been hurt by the Reagan era... even though that same dumbass has now shown that their purchasing power continued increasing during that time. Yet, the dumbass in question still does not seem to get the fact that the middle class has improved.... despite proving that himself.

 

[Cypress]

1) Reagan took office in 1981

2) When you are calculating averages... "close enough" is bullshit. Especially when some dumbass is trying to say that the middle class has been hurt by the Reagan era... even though that same dumbass has now shown that their purchasing power continued increasing during that time. Yet, the dumbass in question still does not seem to get the fact that the middle class has improved.... despite proving that himself.

Ummm, mens income has been falling in the reagan era.

Total houshold income has merely seen nominal moderate gains, because women spouses have had to to work

Which is what I said, 5 billion posts ago: In today's ecnomy, both spouses have to work (often) to make ends meet - because mens' salaries have either flat-lined or gone done.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Okay, SF. The circle is complete.

"We already determined that wages and economic growth (GDP) in the pre-reagan era (1947-1980) outperformed those in the post-reagan era (1980-present)."

Once again moron, NO that is not what "we" have determined. The growth RATE was faster. But for reasons already mentioned that does not equate to outperformance. But we all now realize you will continue to duck the evidence of such and claim that "we agree" with your dumbass assessment.

"After conceding that, you went on to hang your hat on median income data. Which we agree is a different measure than payroll wages. "

I used median income because it is a better guage than wages as to how the middle class is doing. Because it includes ALL of their disposable income and not just their wages.

"I kept asking you time after time to show the median income data for ALL of the relevant pre-reagan era (1946-1980) so we could make a comparison of the two eras. "

And I kept telling you that if you want to prove that the middle class has done worse since Reagan all you need is the starting point of 1980. Then you look and see that the middle class across ALL age groups has done better since Reagan took office. You are the one who seems to think that because the pace of the growth is lower that somehow the middle class is worse off. THAT was your original argument wasn't it? Before you switched to your pre-Reagan post Reagan average rates of growth?

FACT... the middle class is better off today than they were 20 years ago. That is evident by the FACT that the purchasing power of the middle class has continued to rise. By the FACT that median income has risen over the past twenty years on average for the all age groups by 30% AFTER being adjusted for inflation. That means that on average, the middle class has 30% more buying power than they did in 1981 when Reagan took office.

"I understand now why you didn't comply with my request. I just found the US Census data for median household income, going back to the 1940s. "

You CANNOT compare median HOUSEHOLD income to median INCOME. They are not the same dumbass.


No, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the middle class is better off today than it was in the past. They have more purchasing power, better jobs, better education opportunities, better quality of life.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Topper the data don't lie. These graphs come directly from the US Census Bureau.

On average, the middle class and working people did better in the decades before reagan. I note that you haven't (and can't) dispute the data.

For the record, I said in the first thread, that the Reagan era economy (1980-today) has been pretty kind to the wealthy, the affluent, and the most of the professional upper middle classes. So you can stop with your "upper quintile" nonsense.

You truly are a fucking moron. If as you have already stated, the buying power of the middle class increased since 1981.... then HOW is it that they are doing WORSE?

Go take some economics courses, share your idiotic theory with a professor and please record the laughter from the professor and your classmates.

 

[Cypress]

Remember that I said 5 billion posts ago, that in today's middle class, both spouses typically have to work to make ends meet - in contrast to previous generations?

Well, here you go. Families where one spouse works as seen their household income decline

The modest gains in household income have only come, because we put the other spouse to work too. Which allegedly used to alarm "family values" cons. Kids at home with two working spouses:

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.presidentreagan.info/images/per_capita_gdp.gif

check it, this country is not great by defenition of what the median guy makes. We are great because someone can go from the bottom to the ever expanding top. The top expanded greatly under Reagan and has done so ever since.

I disagree, for the top cannot truly expand. The best guage on how the country is doing is to look at purchasing power. If the median income is growing, then people are doing better than they were. If it is shrinking, then they are doing worse. Now, there are other factors that may alter this, but it is the most effective guage.

 

[Cypress]

You truly are a fucking moron. If as you have already stated, the buying power of the middle class increased since 1981.... then HOW is it that they are doing WORSE?


Median household income is only up modestly, because we have to have both spouses working. Which is what I said a billion posts ago. And it's backed up by the census graphs i posted.

Having both spouses work, just to make ends meet, is not the sign of a healthy middle class.

1) Payroll wages down in post-reagan era.

2) GDP underperforming in the reagan era

3) Mens wages and income flatlining or dropping.

4) Modest increases in total household income only possible because the other spouse has to work.