Barack wants your money

[mraynrand]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor,

Why do you insist on pushing this bullshit. 'The poor' is determined by a level of income as is 'the rich.' Thus, an increasing disparity means that wealth is increasing. When you define poor as those making less than 20 or 25K (or any other set level) per/year, then the 'poor' by definition cannot get out of that class, because it is based only on income. If you follow the trajectory of INDIVIDUALS, you find that most poor don't stay in the statistical poor class - almost 80% of the poor make it out of that class and over 50% make it to middle class or above. The poor receive almost all of the benefits of entitlement programs as well, which is not factored into their 'poor' living status. More people are making to millionaires, and more than 70% of millionaires are NOT coming from monied backgrounds - that is, these are new millionaires coming from the middle or lower classes. Most of the studies I've seen do not exclude young part time workers , and college students as 'the poor.' even though such workers are moving through these positions into better paying jobs. That's why when you survey people and ask them how they are doing, you typically get over 80% saying they are doing well or extremely well. 80% of these same people, when interviewed and asked how the country is doing economically say it is doing poorly or bad. How can that be? (These numbers are from before the current credit crisis)

[HowardRoark]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

I thought "trickle down"didn't work? Now we shift gears to eduction and healthcare not working instead?

We Know!!!!.....that's why we need free market answers.

[hoosier]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor,

Why do you insist on pushing this bullshit. 'The poor' is determined by a level of income as is 'the rich.' Thus, an increasing disparity means that wealth is increasing. When you define poor as those making less than 20 or 25K (or any other set level) per/year, then the 'poor' by definition cannot get out of that class, because it is based only on income. If you follow the trajectory of INDIVIDUALS, you find that most poor don't stay in the statistical poor class - almost 80% of the poor make it out of that class and over 50% make it to middle class or above. The poor receive almost all of the benefits of entitlement programs as well, which is not factored into their 'poor' living status. More people are making to millionaires, and more than 70% of millionaires are NOT coming from monied backgrounds - that is, these are new millionaires coming from the middle or lower classes. Most of the studies I've seen do not exclude young part time workers , and college students as 'the poor.' even though such workers are moving through these positions into better paying jobs. That's why when you survey people and ask them how they are doing, you typically get over 80% saying they are doing well or extremely well. 80% of these same people, when interviewed and asked how the country is doing economically say it is doing poorly or bad. How can that be? (These numbers are from before the current credit crisis)

I'll rephrase what I said and maybe my point will be clearer: (1) In the last three decades in the US real wages have increased at a significantly higher rate at the top in comparison with the middle and the bottom. (2) In the same period, wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the richest of the rich. If this were merely a reflection of the fact that wealth were increasing, you would expect to see a decline in the number of poor and a middle class that was gradually becoming wealthier. The numbers don't reflect either of those. Wealth certainly is increasing, but the main beneficiaries of that increase are the very rich.

[bobblehead]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

This is a lie...the rich as defined by liberals in the last stimulas check are people making over 74k a year. The poor as defined by liberals trying to expand schip are people making less than 54k a year. That is a disparity between rich and poor of 20k a year. Some gap.

[texaspackerbacker]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

I thought "trickle down"didn't work? Now we shift gears to eduction and healthcare not working instead?

We Know!!!!.....that's why we need free market answers.

Wonderful! I applaud you for saying that!

But Wait! You're the guy who wants to have government FORCE people against their will to pay for health insurance. No HYPOCRISY there, is there?

[bobblehead]

My Fellow Conservatives:

There you go again--drifting in the wrong direction, politically and rhetorically, anyway. Don't you get it? When you whine and rant about unfair taxation of the rich, progressive taxation being watered down socialism, etc., .

Tex...please...I went on to state that capitalism is responsible for most of the wealth created in the history of the world....I was blasting the progressive taxation as watered down socialism as in socialism doesn't work and never has...I never even used the word fair. I was making the exact point you are.

[bobblehead]

Aynrand, the idea that we would be better off in the long run LOSING and letting Obama JIMMY CARTER-IZE the country--as you seem to be talking about--has been around for a long time. The question is, will we even have a country left--will the country be so damaged by Obama and the left that we will be forever CHANGED--there's that ugly word again?

Maxi and Bobble want it to happen to usher in a strengthened, more conservative GOP. I think it's just as likely, if not more likely, that the GOP will see it as a message that they need to move even more to the left.

I admit one thing...the republicans aren't very good at figuring out what their base wants. They need another leader like gingrich to emerge who is confident and committed to what he believes and is not merely interested in getting elected. Those that are only interested in keeping their seats are weak people and weak republicans. They are not capable of staying true to conservative convictions and they will lose. They aren't in the game to do what is right...they might as well be democrats.

I am not confident that they will figure it out, but new republican candidates will emerge who will....and we will be a better country for it.

Final note...I don't WANT it to happen, I want the republicans in office now to act like conservatives and do the right thing...they are not, that leaves little choice, they must be replaced or we are no better off than we are with democrats in office. The country heading the wrong way fast or slow makes no difference to me, we need a REAL CHANGE IN DIRECTION!!

[bobblehead]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

Categorically false. We do not have the highest standard of living.

We have a country that has wealth unevenly distributed as compared to other developed nations. The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow. Many prominent economists (Alan Greenspan, etc.) have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living.

We aren't in the top ten in the UN's Human Development Index.

In the Human Poverty Index we rank 16th.

In the Economist's quality of life we rank 13th.

Median wages have been in decline since 74. In 05 the median, adjusted for inflation was less than what it was in 74.

Well....if the UN did a study it must be giving america a fair shake.

[bobblehead]

I'll rephrase what I said and maybe my point will be clearer: (1) In the last three decades in the US real wages have increased at a significantly higher rate at the top in comparison with the middle and the bottom. (2) In the same period, wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the richest of the rich. If this were merely a reflection of the fact that wealth were increasing, you would expect to see a decline in the number of poor and a middle class that was gradually becoming wealthier. The numbers don't reflect either of those. Wealth certainly is increasing, but the main beneficiaries of that increase are the very rich.

You use the last 3 decades as your example...I ask you this....3 decades ago did you have a 50" flatscreen? How about a PSP?? Maybe a Bose stereo?? NO, quality of life then for the "upper class" compared to quality of life today for the "middle class" doesn't compare. Trying to compare their earnings is like masturbating with sandpaper.

[Scott Campbell]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor......

If a poor person quadruples their income from 25K to 100K, and a wealthier person only doubles their income from 1M to 2M, there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.


I say that's good for everybody, unless your in the business of pandering to the poor and making excuses.

[retailguy]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor......

If a poor person quadruples their income from 25K to 100K, and a wealthier person only doubles their income from 1M to 2M, there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.


I say that's good for everybody, unless your in the business of pandering to the poor and making excuses.

DING, DING, DING. We have a WINNER!

[hoosier]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor......

If a poor person quadruples their income from 25K to 100K, and a wealthier person only doubles their income from 1M to 2M, there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.


I say that's good for everybody, unless your in the business of pandering to the poor and making excuses.

Nice try but that's not what's happening. In your example middle incomes would be rising faster than the highest incomes. In fact, however, it's the other way around: middle incomes are more or less static whereas upper incomes have increased by 80%.

[RashanGary]

Hey zig, I've got to be to bed tonight by 8:00 so no go on the W/L. Can't work PM's right now. Mods fix please.

[mraynrand]

If a poor person quadruples their income from 25K to 100K, and a wealthier person only doubles their income from 1M to 2M, there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. .

But in this scenario, the person earning 100K is no longer poor. The poor is still defined by income, thus a person still earning 25K is poor, but you've added a rich person, increasing the disparity between rich and poor. That's why the key is to look at individual trajectories - most of 'the poor' do not remain poor their entire lives; most start poor and eventually become better off.

[HowardRoark]

Income confusion

By Thomas Sowell

Anyone who follows the media has probably heard many times that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and incomes of the population in general are stagnating. Moreover, those who say such things can produce many statistics, including data from the Census Bureau, which seem to indicate that.

On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.

The top one percent — "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left — saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent.

Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.

How can all this be? How can official statistics from different agencies of the same government — the Census Bureau and the IRS — lead to such radically different conclusions?

There are wild cards in such data that need to be kept in mind when you hear income statistics thrown around — especially when they are thrown around by people who are trying to prove something for political purposes.

One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.

What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.

That is why the IRS data, which are for people 25 years old and older, and which follow the same individuals over time, find those in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. That is why they are no longer in the same bracket.

That is also why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket can be going down, as the Census Bureau data show, while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up by large amounts. Unfortunately, most income statistics, including those from the Census Bureau, do not follow individuals over time. The Internal Revenue Service does that and so does a study at the University of Michigan, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Following trends among income brackets over the years creates the illusion of following people over time. But the only way to follow people is to follow people.

Another wild card in income statistics is that many such statistics are about households or families — whose sizes vary over time, vary between one racial or ethnic group and another, and vary between one income bracket and another.


That is why household or family income can remain virtually unchanged for decades while per capita income is going up by very large amounts. The number of people per household and per family is declining.

Differences in the number of people per household from one ethnic group to another is why Hispanics have higher household incomes than blacks, while blacks have higher individual incomes than Hispanics.

Considering the millions of dollars being paid to each of the anchors who broadcast network news, surely these networks can afford to hire a few statisticians to check the statistics being thrown around, before these numbers are broadcast across the land as facts on which we are supposed to base policies and elect presidents.

Now that the Internal Revenue data show the opposite of what the media and the politicians have been saying for years, should we expect either to change? Not bloody likely.

The University of Michigan study, which has been going on for decades, shows patterns very similar to those of the IRS data. Those patterns have been ignored for decades.

Too many in the media and in politics choose whatever statistics fit their preconceptions.