Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Stereotypes are hurting this cause!

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 2, 2012, 8:13 p.m. EST by justhefacts (1275)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Definition of Stereotypes: “A stereotype is a commonly held public belief about specific social groups or types of individuals. Stereotypes are standardized and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior assumptions.”

Stereotypes are especially likely to be wrong in conflict situations. When people are engaged in a conflict, their image of their opponent tends to become more and more hostile. As communication gets cut off, people make generalizations and assumptions about opponents based on very sketchy and often erroneous information.

They see faults in themselves and "project" those faults onto their opponent, preferring to believe that they are good and their opponents are bad. Eventually, opponents develop a strong "enemy image," that assumes that everything the other side does is evil or wrong, while everything they do themselves is good. Such negative stereotypes make any sort of conflict resolution or conflict management process more difficult." http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/fixstereo.htm

In an article published in the New York Post on November 7, 2011 Michael Tanner, a Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute described the most common stereotypes being used as social weapons against the 1%.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_percent_mDxpXnIgtFGBv8xlexdfVO

STEREOTYPE: “The rich” are either “trust-fund babies” who inherited their money, or greedy bankers and hedge-fund managers. Certainly, they haven’t worked especially hard for their money.”

TRUTH: “Roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn’t inherit their wealth; they earned it. How? According to a recent survey of the top 1 percent of American earners, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance.

Roughly a third were entrepreneurs or managers of non-financial businesses. Nearly 16 percent were doctors or other medical professionals.

Lawyers made up slightly more than 8 percent, and engineers, scientists and computer professionals another 6.6 percent.

Sports and entertainment figures -- the folks flying in on their private jets to express solidarity with Occupy Wall Street -- composed almost 2 percent.

By and large, the wealthy have worked hard for their money. NYU sociologist Dalton Conley says that “higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do.”

STEREOTYPE:” While the recession has thrown millions of Americans out of work, the rich have been getting even richer.”

TRUTH: “Because so much of their income is tied up in investments, the recession has hit the rich especially hard. Much attention has been paid recently to a Congressional Budget Office study that showed incomes for the top 1 percent rose far faster from 1980 until 2007 than for the rest of us. But the nonpartisan Tax Foundation has found that since 2007, there has been a 39 percent decline in the number of American millionaires.

Among the “super-rich,” the decline has been even sharper: The number of Americans earning more than $10 million a year has fallen by 55 percent. In fact, while in 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income here, that figure has declined to just 16 percent. Inequality in America is declining.”

STEREOTYPE: “The rich don’t even pay their fair share in taxes: Millionaires and billionaires are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.”

TRUTH: “As for not paying their fair share, the top 1 percent pay 36.7 percent of all federal income taxes. Because, as noted above, they earn just 16 percent of all income, that certainly seems like more than a fair share.

Maybe Warren Buffett is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, as he claims. But the comparison is misleading because Buffett’s income comes mostly from capital gains, which were already taxed at their origin through the corporate-income tax.

Moreover, the Buffetts of the world are clearly an exception. Overall, the rich pay an effective tax rate (after all deductions and exemptions) of roughly 24 percent. For all taxpayers as a group, the average effective tax rate is about 11 percent.”

STEREOTYPE: “The rich don’t care about the poor! “

TRUTH: “Households with more than $1 million in income donated more than $150 billion to charity last year, roughly half of all US charitable donations.”

STEREOTYPE: “The rich don’t create jobs!”

TRUTH: “The rich provide the investment capital that funds ventures, creates jobs and spurs innovation. The money that the rich save and invest is the money that companies use to start or expand businesses, buy machinery and other physical capital and hire workers.

It has become fashionable to ridicule the idea of the rich as “job creators,” but if the rich don’t create jobs, who will? How many workers have been hired recently by the poor?”

TRUTH: “No doubt dishonest or unscrupulous businessmen have gotten rich by taking advantage of others. And few of us are likely to lose much sleep over the plight of the rich.”

TRUTH: “But shouldn’t public policy be based on something more than class warfare, envy and stereotypes?”

Michael Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_percent_mDxpXnIgtFGBv8xlexdfVO#ixzz1iLgWb4dl

Point-If OWS wants to gain the trust of the majority-they must FIRST be trustworthy.

157 Comments

157 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Income for the top 1% has soared over the past three decades:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/income-for-the-top-1-has-soared-over-past-three-decades.html

The poor are still getting poorer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/poor-are-still-getting-poorer-but-downturns-punch-varies-census-data-show.html

The Cato Institute is a libertarian "think" tank - No wonder Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute defends the wealthy.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

1Your attack on the Cato Institute or Mr. Tanner has no bearing on the truthfulness of his facts

2 The "incomes" of the top1% soaring does not equate with " the poor getting poorer"

Here are some “experts” in Economics and some expert analysis of research done on economic findings in America that say that “the poor are not getting poorer”.

A report of income mobility in America that proves that the vast majority of“the poor” do not stay poor” and the vast majority of “the rich” do not stay rich.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr180.pdf

The next link is from an article written by David R. Henderson in 1998. (I realize that’s 13 years ago, but it proves that historically the “the poor were not getting poorer” PRE 1998 either. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution. He is also an associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6416

Here’s a blog by Michael Smith MBA, CFP®-Not only the article, but the discussion in the comments section details how incorrect it is to view the “wealth” in America as some kind of “pie” and not an “open system”.

http://www.financialfinesse.com/blog/2011/08/are-the-rich-really-getting-richer-and-the-poor-really-getting-poorer/

Here’s an article by Walter E. Williams who holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College (1967-69), California State University (1967-1971) and Temple University (1973-1980)

His conclusion in the following article? –“The bottom line is, the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer/page/full/

Here’s an article by Mark Thoma-a Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/11/inequality-and-.html

An article by Mark J Sperry, Professor of Economics and Finance

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-you-do-time-lapse-analysis-instead.html

An article from the Daily Caller:

"According to the research, published at The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, from Cornell economist Richard Burkhauser, Joint Committee on Taxation economist Jeff Larrimore, and Indiana University economist Kosali Simon, while the rich have indeed been getting richer, for the last 30 years so too have the poor and middle class."

“The bottom line is [conventional wisdom] asks what’s been happening to private personal income over time and they are right if you look at that for tax units, things do not look very good for the middle class,” he said. “But if you take other things into account, the reason the country has not gotten in a civil war is because things are not that bad. In fact everybody has done better.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/26/economic-study-despite-obamas-claim-the-poor-are-not-getting-poorer/#ixzz1iLYYTZND

And the last is a blog post about using arguments (which he calls myths) “ based on the US gini coefficient increasing by about 10% since WWII.”

http://critiquesofcollectivism.blogspot.com/2011/07/rich-get-richer-and-poor-get-poorer.html

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

I studied both economics and history in school and I am well aware that one can find research to support almost any argument one wants to make or back into. I respect your research, justthefacts, but if I had the time I'm certain I could debunk each one of those arguments with an opposing view.

[-] 1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

So the answer is: no truth. Truth is relative. Truth is whatever you want it to be. Maybe that is why the country splits right down the middle. 50-50. You believe this therefore I believe that.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

It is very true that it is hard to find consensus. The best thing to do is try to have an open mind. Try to understand the other person's point of view. There is much to learn for all of us.

[-] 1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

I have always had a hard time seeing how people want to take from others,whether it be from rich or poor. It boggles my mind and causes anxiety. That government takes by legal theft seems tyrannical.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

This is hard to explain but I'll try to tell you how I see it. A capitalist earns a profit and that profit is shared with the workers through a wage paid to them for the labor that produces the good. I think that the profit could and should (because it hasn't been) be shared more fairly with the workers (through a higher, living wage) because it is the labor that creates the profit along with the capital owned by the capitalist. Workers have much less power when it comes to setting wages than capitalists (employers). I know you'll just say the market sets the wage, however, a high unemployment rate keeps wages down through job insecurity and employees have basic human needs to fulfill, not just a profit to make. They are much more vulnerable.

So, who takes from who? Perhaps it is the capitalist (employer) who is exploiting, taking from the worker by paying a wage that is too low, that does not reflect the production of his labor.

I, personally, would rather see employees paid fairly by their employers than see taxes increased. Increasing taxes on the rich is a way for the government to make up for the greed of the capitalists who don't pay fair wages to their employees.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

This is a critical part of MY resistance to increasing taxes on ANYONE. The government has NOT been making up for the greed that you propose exists. They have NOT been passing the taxes THEY ALREADY collect from the rich directly ON to those unfairly treated employees!! And there is absolutely NO WAY (currently) to be sure that ANY increase in the amount they demand from the "rich" WILL directly benefit the poor.

They haven't just "decreased" the tax burden of the "rich"...they ALSO increased the spending of the government. If "the poor" aren't benefiting from that "increased spending"....WHO THE HELL IS??? And WHY are "those" people getting the benefit INSTEAD of the poor?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Let's focus on ending greed. Let's get money out of politics which is the cause of all of these symptoms in the first place.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Do you even care about the difference between "the truth" and a "consensus"??? Or the difference between a point of view and THE TRUTH?

That this planet was FLAT was a "consensus". That the sun orbited the Earth was a consensus.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

I'm a truth seeker. That's why I actually listen to people like you who are against this movement. I want to hear what you have to say. In the end, though, the truth for one is not the truth for another unless you have hard cold facts. Not the analysis of those facts because that is where it gets hairy, but hard cold facts. You know the ones I said: 1 in 7 are on food stamps, 42% live in poverty, 1/2 of all Americans earn less than 26k, 49 million are without health insurance, wages have decreased by, I think 7 or 8% in the last decade, CEOs who 30 years ago earned an average of 40 times the average worker's wage now earn 343 times the average worker's wage. Those facts are irrefutable.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

A truth seeker should make sure the facts they use are ACTUAL and THEN make sure they apply those facts properly.

I'm refuting this "fact" of yours outright. "42% live in poverty"

According to Census Bureau statistics-the number of people living in poverty in the US is currently around 16%-NOT 42%.

And I'm questioning what you are trying to say with this one- "49 million people are without health insurance" So what? People opt out of insurance programs. Some people don't qualify for HI, doesn't mean they get no medical care. Medicare and Medicade-were they considered "health insurance" for this statistic?

"Wages have decreased by, I think7 or 8% in the last decade" You didn't state for "who" or "what" group of people that wages dropped, so I assumed you meant average, overall US population. If that's the group YOU were referring to, you're wrong.

According to the SSA-a decrease of 7% from 2000’s average wage of $32,154.82 would have been $2250.83. That would make 2010’s average wage income- $29903.99 According to the SSA-the Average wage in 2010 was $41,673.83

Here’s a link to the SSA’s National Average Wage Index from 1951-2010 It shows a steady increase in wages for the past decade. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/AWI.html

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Hey genius. When 'average' wages are calculated, the figures include the top 1%. Therefore, 'average' wage statistics are misleading.

Like Robert Reich said, "most people" have seen a slight decline in wages. So drop the 'average' crap and focus on the lower majority. You can start with the 2nd quintile from the top.

Just remember what I told you last night about inflation and the way its calculated.

I don't give a ratt's ass if this is your page. I won't let you get away with your tricks.

Now post something regarding the lower 4 quintiles specifically. Leave the rest out for now. Lets see if you can handle this without screwing it up.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Yes. My apoIogies. I made the same error in another response today. The 42% is African American children who live in poverty. Pretty awful, don't you think? However, the WSJ did have an article about how nearly 50% of Americans are financially fragile. Here is the link:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/23/nearly-half-of-americans-are-financially-fragile/

Here's an article with a chart on how wages have declined:

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0304_jobs_greenstone_looney.aspx

Here's an article from WSJ re: wages have declined 7% since 2000:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576628981208827422.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news

The SSA Index is used to determine benefits. It's not actual. I'm sorry I'm not an expert on Social Security.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

From the SSA website.

"To be more precise, however, the index is based on compensation (wages, tips, and the like) subject to Federal income taxes, as reported by employers on Form W-2."

The WSJ article is about a 7% drop in "median income"-not "wages".

Wages and income are TWO different things when you're talking about the economy. And that difference matters! THIS is why it's important to understand what you are talking about. But it's a perfect example of what I believe MC's argument does-confuses one term with another as if they say the same things. They don't, and it makes his argument weak at best and incorrect at most.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Hey genius. When 'average' wages are calculated, the figures include the top 1%. Therefore, 'average' wage statistics are misleading.

Like Robert Reich said, "most people" have seen a slight decline in wages. So drop the 'average' crap and focus on the lower majority. You can start with the 2nd quintile from the top.

Just remember what I told you last night about inflation and the way its calculated.

I don't give a ratt's ass if this is your page. I won't let you get away with your tricks.

Now post something regarding the lower 4 quintiles specifically. Leave the rest out for now. Lets see if you can handle this without screwing it up.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

You idiot. The word "quintile" means "Any of five equal groups into which a population can be divided according to a particular variable."

The top 1% is PART of the top "quintile" and if you "drop" it you're excluding 20% of the population from your stats....NOT just the 1%.

Averages are not misleading-they are averages. If you want to talk about specifics, be SPECIFIC about what you want to talk about.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

No shit Sherlock. Don't try to play teacher with me. Not on this issue. You'll lose. Say that reminds me.

Last night, even after all our debates, you STILL couldn't bring yourself to admit that the middle class had been shrinking and the lower class had been expanding. You made another demand for statistical evidence. Well, I've got another batch for you right here.

Now that you understand what a quintile is, you should be able to follow this. Well, unless that weak conscience of yours won't allow it.

Tell you what. I take it back. You can't follow it. You can't and you won't. You will still swear that it proves nothing. You will still refuse to acknowledge the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. You just don't have the guts. Thats a fact. But for the benefit of others, I will post the statistics anyway. Right here on your sorry excuse for an 'intellectually honest' page.

The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.

Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.

So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?

Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.

Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.

Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.

Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.

But that 66.1 percent spread is nothing. It is multiplied by hundreds just within that top centile. The richest 1%.

THATS THE PROBLEM.

Nevermind justhefacts. Its name implies a lack of bias. However, its attitude shows a complete lack of regard for all 'facts' not to its liking.

Now, watch it deny the actual shrinkage of the middle class, the actual expansion of the lower class, and the actual transfer of wealth from poor to rich. In particular, the richest 1% who as of 2007, owned 43% of all financial wealth in America. Thats more than twice the share they held in 1976.

Next time, we'll discuss the years 2009 and 2010. Lets just say for now, that the trend has continued contrary to recent claims made by 'justhefacts'.

cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

And yet one more PERFECT example of what I’m talking about. Thanks for posting a fresh one MC.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM- (I can't believe I even have to say this in writing....it's so painfully brutal)

A metric dividing the INCOME earned by the "income earners" in the US into quintiles is not the same thing as a metric dividing the POPULATION of the entire country into quintiles.

“Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.”

Nope. All that statistic/fact “proves” is that the net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. I’ll fully admit that it could be used to PROVE a theory that the lowest class has expanded between 1979 and 2007, but I’d have to examine all the data such as how many people were in the lowest quintile in 1979 and how many are in it now. By only using that ONE statistic MC has not “proven” or even “damn near” proven that the drop in net income in that group COULD ONLY indicate that class has expanded.

MC thinks that just that ONE stat alone “damn near proves the expansion of the lowest class” all by itself. But that “stat” doesn’t MEASURE expansion of that class. It measures a drop in net income for a specific group. But he could have easily established the indisputable, mathematical truth about the expansion/contraction/stability of this group by simply comparing the actual number of people in that group in 1979 to the actual number of people in that group in 2007. In fact, that WOULD be the most logical way to establish it….so why did he even attempt to prove it this way?

MC goes on to relate more indisputable FACTS that specifically measure INCOME, and wants you to accept those facts as if they ALSO measure more PEOPLE in more groups. THEY DON’T. It’s illogical for him to say they do.

“Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007.”

More like indisputable proof that MC doesn't know how to apply statistics properly.

P.S. The following is wrong too:

"Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population."

1 The top 1% of the population cannot also be 5% of that population. Pick one.

This is why I can't discuss this any more with you. You aren't even an "average" thinker (because my 14 and 17 year old SONS understood where you went wrong without a word from me when I asked them to read it) much less a "critical thinker". I thought maybe I could just TRY to show you why your posts make no sense....that you just MIGHT be REASON-ABLE. But you aren't and all I want to do is insult the hell out of you every time you reply to me...and I don't want to be a person like you.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Again you psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary tactic resorting coward hanging from a tree. Your latest attempt to debunk a proven fact with more carefully worded but still psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary crap being thrown from a psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary tactic resorting coward hanging from a tree is even more rank than the previous load.

Better wake your sons up. They should read this too before they embarrass themselves in school reciting your latest load of psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary crap. Better wake them up right now.

When you consider the US population of 1977 and that of 2009, you will find that it grew by around 80 million. Although the figures aren't common knowledge, the growth in general is. Everyone knows that our population grew.

This proves that the bottom quintile grew by around 16 million. The same goes for each of the other four. If I had not broken down the share of income by quintile starting from the bottom up, a psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary tactic resorting coward could hang from its tree and assume that the middle class had strengthened enough to absorb that 16 million from the lowest quintile, thereby expanding the middle class and leaving the population of the lower class unchanged. It would be a psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary assumption to make but you would make it none the less. Evidently, your sons would as well.

But I didn't stop at the bottom quintile. I continued in order from the bottom quintile to the top. Proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that the bottom four quintiles each and collectively lost relative buying power thereby expanding the lower class drastically.

If it weren't for inflation and the drastic increases in the costs of key items like energy, food, health care, and housing, which we have already covered, a psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary tactic resorting coward could hang from its tree and make the assumption that the middle class even with its drastic and PROVEN loss of relative buying power had sustained its population thereby shrinking in only one of two measures. With a US economy more than double the size of 1979, it would be a psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary stance to take but you would take it none the less. Evidently, your sons would as well.

Now, if that consumer debt I referred to had increased by just over 1/3 from 1979 to 2007 (adjusting for inflation), even a reasonable man or woman could make the assumption that it were proportional to the increase in population and therefore, not relevant.

But it didn't increase by just over 1/3. It multiplied by at least 5 adjusting for inflation (I'm going by memory here but I know thats in the ballpark.). Thats right. The population grew by just over 1/3 from 1979 to 2007. Consumer debt was multiplied by at least 5 adjusting for inflation.

So I have proven beyond all shadow of doubt that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded from 1979 to 2007.

Contrary to your outrageous claims backed up in part by a partisan puppet propaganda tank like the CATO institute, the trend HAS NOT been reversed.

As of spring 2011, we have more billionaires, more multi-hundred millionaires, more multi-millionaires, and more millionaires than ever before. Their combined net worth is more than the lower 90% combined.

The growing concentration of wealth has also been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Only a psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary tactic resorting coward hanging from a tree would have the nerve to write an absurd piece like that which you posted 5 hours ago trying in psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary vane to debunk all or any of the above.

That psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary tactic resorting coward hanging from a tree would also be unable to understand the meaning of the word 'within' and how it applies within the following statement:

"Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population."

Astonishing.

I would pray for your sons but I'm not a religious man. I can only hope that some outside influence might compensate for that of a psycho radical delusional half-wit diversionary tactic resorting coward hanging from a tree.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Okay. Thanks.

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

1 Studying "economics and history in school" is not the same thing as being an economics professor now is it? Who do you think the average person be more inclined to listen to? You-a former "student" of both economics and history in school, or a practicing "professor" of economics?

2 Unless you want to be proven a hypocrite, you can just use the "excuse" you use to brush off the research I presented-("I am well aware that one can find research to support almost any argument one wants to make or back into") as my response to anything you'd post to "debunk" them ok? Fair is fair huh?

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I'm glad you made that point about the 'economics professor'. Unfortunately for you, its going to bite you in the ass right now.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY

Fellow protestors: Justhefacts is far too conservative and stubborn to get through to. He/she/they are like a stiff conservative rubber band. A few days ago, he/she/they FINALLY acknowledged the ACTUAL TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM POOR TO RICH. But this came only after several days of heated debate with me. There were easily a dozen mini-essays on both sides. Ultimately, he/she/they did break down and acknowledge that transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

But it didn't last. Now, he/she/they are back on this die-hard conservative kick in the brain absolutely refusing to admit that which he/she/they just admitted a few days ago.

Justhefacts is beyond reach. A lost cause.

The rest of you watch the video. Listen closely to Robert Reich as he addresses the OWS crowd. Then, research his credentials. Then consider this:

A dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views including Richard Wolff, Allen Greenspan, and Paul Krugman.

Albert Einstein and Mariner Eccles both attributed the first Great Depression primarily to a heavy concentration of wealth.

There was a partial redistribution from the mid '30's to the mid '70's. Unfortunately, all that progress has been reversed over the last 35 years. We now have the greatest concentration of wealth in America since 1929.

Watch the video. Its a good one. Then tell Justhefacts to acknowledge one in particular:

THE RICH HAVE BEEN GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR HAVE BEEN GETTING POORER AS A DIRECT RESULT.

I don't know what happened to the link. It was good yesterday. Just go to youtube and search keywords Robert Reich OWS.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

You're funny. I actually like that you post your facts and I'm not putting you down for that. It's a good thing. But, when you put so many in one post it's hard to respond to. I suppose that is your strategy. It would take me hours to go through your links. So, just read ModestCapitalist below. He/she seems to have given a good practical example of how our economy works to the advantage of the wealthy. And, the Cato Institute is a polemical organization. Their claim to be libertarian makes them so. Come on. You can't say they're neutral in any way.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Like MC is neutral in any way? You can't use the arguments of someone as biased as MC is to "prove your points" while complaining when you think someone else is doing the same thing.

MC uses selective data that does not cross-equate to make statements that he believes proves he's "right" about something. He also uses "selective" quotes from specific people when it is advantageous to his argument and discounts everything one of those people said that it doesn't.

It's called intellectual dishonesty and it has no place in ANY discussion involving the future of our country.

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

No I don't use selective data. I use a wide swath based in the middle. I don't just ignore conservative points of view. I respond to them with info taken from that wide swath. Like I told you before, I have read those reports of upward mobility and household income growth and/or the like. I read them and responded. I've also said many times that the masses are partly to blame for the obscene concentration of wealth. Thats right. Its partly their own damn fault. I've admitted that many times. A die-hard liberal partisan puppet would disregard that side of the story and blame the rich exclusively. I'm not a die-hard conservative or a die-hard liberal. I'm a die-hard free thinker. As such, I refuse to let anyone get away with trying to debunk a physical, mathematical, and economic FACT. America's wealth is being concentrated.

TRANSFERRED FROM POOR TO RICH.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

rolls eyes

By "selecting" only a wide swath in the middle-you are SELECTING data right?

It's not the number of statistics you use that matters, it's HOW you use them. Statistics are simply mathematical measurements to support our postulations, theories, estimations or projections about other things. Think of them as the 2x4’s you are using to build a house. 2x4’s can be used correctly or incorrectly, and the way they are used can and does affect the strength or weakness of whatever they are being used to support. The mere presence of 2 X 4’s “inside of” the space you define as “your house”, or the number of them you have inside that space, does nothing to make that house stronger or weaker. How you USE those 2 X 4’s can.

Just because something is “mathematically true” as a measurement does not mean that it applies to your argument in a “true/strong” way. It is entirely possible to apply a “true” statement to an argument in a FALSE/weak manner.

When using statistics to support or “prove” that an argument, or a premise within an argument, is “true” or not-it is important to know “how” a specific collection of statistics was collected, analyzed, interpreted, and presented in the first place. It is also important to show “HOW” you are applying those statistics to your argument. Just because something is “mathematically true” as a measurement does not mean that it applies to your argument in a “true” way. It is entirely possible to apply a “true” statement to an argument in a FALSE manner.

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/

I loved this article called “Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty”. It helps ME remember to always try to be intellectually honest in my discussions and statements AND helps me to determine when someone else’s argument might NOT be intellectually honest.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I didn't say "only a wide swath in the middle". I said "based in the middle". Meaning that I consider all sources. Not just those to the left or the right.

The rest of your post is more fake free thinker diversionary crap. That strategy is getting old.

But if you're going to harp on 'intellectual honesty', then apply it to your CATO institute report. Ask yourself why it makes reference only to Federal Income tax statistics and not taxes in general. It makes no mention whatsoever of overall effective rates. Is that 'intellectual honesty'?

Then consider the stat regarding 16% of the income. Is that 'intellectual honesty'?

Think hard before you answer. I'll address more flaws later.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

"Ask yourself why it makes reference only to Federal Income tax statistics and not taxes in general. It makes no mention whatsoever of overall effective rates. Is that 'intellectual honesty'?"

READ IT AGAIN Captain Obvious-

"Moreover, the Buffetts of the world are clearly an exception. Overall, the rich pay an effective tax rate (after all deductions and exemptions) of roughly 24 percent. For all taxpayers as a group, the average effective tax rate is about 11 percent.”

"Then consider the stat regarding 16% of the income. Is that 'intellectual honesty'?"

The actual quote is In fact, "while in 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income here, that figure has declined to just 16 percent."

Here's proof that he's right.

"The 1.4 million Americans in the IRS' top taxpayer category in 2009 reported nearly 17 percent of all the country's taxable income. From those filers, the IRS collected $318 billion or almost 37 percent of all the individual taxes paid in 2009."

Read more: Top 1 Percent: How Much Do They Earn? | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx#ixzz1iXuekugj

In economic terms, and discussions, there is a DIFFERENCE between "income" (as in overall income as a group) and "investment income" and "wage income" etc as individual parts of that group. There is also a difference between "wealth"- (which is defined as net worth or assets minus liabilities) and "financial wealth" or "marketable wealth".

YOU keep interchanging them, but doing so changes the meaning of what you are talking about. Either you don't know that, or you don't care.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I did read it again. This is your quote:

"“As for not paying their fair share, the top 1 percent pay 36.7 percent of all federal income taxes. Because, as noted above, they earn just 16 percent of all income, that certainly seems like more than a fair share."

Why the reference to Federal Income taxes in particular? Why no reference to total effective rates including all Federal, State, and local taxes?

Because when you account for all those, the middle class end up paying about the same effective rate as the rich. Thats why. INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

and no, no, NO. The richest one percent DO NOT reap only 16% of the income in America. Their share is considerably higher. I'm going to give you one more chance to get real. Otherwise, I'm going to have to throw something profound and obvious in your face AGAIN.

Another one of your quotes:

"Here's proof that he's right."

Astonishing. All that type about 'logical fallacy' and you still don't get it.

I want you to adress those two issues in particular. Think hard. I'm going somewhere with this.

I'll give you another clue:

Look at the wall. Keep looking until you find one.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

"Why the reference to Federal Income taxes in particular?"

Because he was talking about Federal Income Taxes IN PARTICULAR in THAT particular quote, and NOT STATE OR LOCAL INCOME TAXES! OH MY CRAP! In ANOTHER quote he talked about "effective tax rates" and anyone as informed as you are would recognize that he HAD to be referencing the "effective tax rates" that applied to the same damn criteria!

BUT if you'd like to discuss the "TOTAL effective tax rates"-which include Federal, State and local taxes-of each and every person in the 1% AND the middle class-then you need to PRODUCE the actual "total effective tax rates" OF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

BUT-I'm STILL going to be able to distinguish between AND POINT OUT, the difference between the "total effective tax rates" of the GROUP of taxes (Federal, State, and local) and the "effective tax rate" of only ONE of those taxes.

And I will.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

No you raving lunatic radical psychotic diversionary tactic resorting coward. There is no data base, study, report or ROOM ON THIS SITE to post statistical information regarding every single member of the 1% club AND the middle class. Nobody in their right mind would even take such a demand seriously.

The point about your 'Federal Income Tax' statistics was that its a single cherry picked from a tree. Thats not 'intellectual honesty'. The total efective rates are nearly flat across the top four quintiles.

and I will never click on your fake free thinker links. I will never allow you to divert my attention. Deal with it.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

You won't let the truth that you're a moron divert you either.

Try critical thinking links sometime. They don't describe you.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

FACT- There has never been a time in the history of the world, much less in America, where the "wealth in America" was evenly, equally, exactly distributed amongst it's citizens. Therefore America's wealth HAS ALWAYS been "concentrated" in one way or another.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

No shit Sherlock. Its the degree I have made reference to so many times.

ITS THE DEGREE STUPID.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

But the average person you are speaking to DOES NOT KNOW THAT. YOU DO. And yet you don't state it as a degree EVERY time you mention it. You are either making assumptions that everyone actually reads ALL of your blather, or that the difference doesn't matter.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

The TWO huge problems, specific problems, I have with average people (like myself) using terminology that is used DIFFERENTLY by economists and scientists and "experts" as if how it is defined doesn't really matter. IT DOES.

1-the term "wealth" when used by economic/financial professionals and experts MAY NOT mean the same thing that it means to the average person. You need to define EXACTLY what the term "wealth" means when YOU use it and either stick to that definition across the board OR indicate when your argument defines "wealth" a different way every time you use the word.

2-

In physics, and math, and science and economics-the word "concentration" means something COMPLETELY different than it means to the average person having an average discussion.

Of course you just MIGHT believe that "wealth" can "focus it's attention" or "concentrate" like a person can when they think about something really hard...but that is NOT the definition used when the people who specialize in physics, mathematics, economics, or social sciences use it.

When THOSE people use the term "concentration" they mean "The amount of a substance within a given area". Thus the phrase "concentration of wealth in America" to THEM-literally means JUST the amount of a substance (wealth) in America (the given area). Period. Nothing more. The phrase "the wealth of the 1%" would be the "amount of wealth in the 1%"-nothing more. They would look at the concentration of "the wealth of the 1% in America" as a "concentration within another concentration".

THUS-in order for you to PROVE an incredibly specific THING- that the "concentration of wealth in America" IS being funneled directly into the pockets of the "1% in America" AND that the wealth you are SPECIFICALLY referring TO is coming from the SPECIFIC GROUP you say that is it, you MUST provide FACTS that SPECIFICALLY demonstrate that SPECIFIC thing.

I refuse to let anyone get away with attempting to use real, provable facts that measure some specific things or some general things, as if they automatically and really measure some OTHER specific thing that they in "fact" do NOT.

Have I made myself clear now?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

We've been through all this before. Again, you're trying way to hard to debunk or disregard a physical, mathematical, and economic PROVEN FACT with generic diversionary points about logic in general, interpretations, generalizations, ect. That diversionary crap might work on your little sister. It won't work on me.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

I don't know MC at all. Haven't been paying that much attention to his/her posts because honestly, like yours, they are too long. He/she does make a good point below. I'm aloud to like his post below.

You are aware of the poverty statistics in the U.S. 1 in 7 are on food stamps. 42% live in poverty. 49 million have no health insurance. And, half of all jobs in the U.S. pay less than $26k. I don't see how anyone could argue that the middle class is doing well.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

You can like MC's posts all you wish to. That doesn't make them statistically or intellectually honest or "correct" however.

You are aware that posting statistics about "the poor"(poverty) doesn't prove anything about the "middle class" right? If your point is that the middle class is "falling" into poverty-and that is why the numbers in the "poor" category are growing-you need to look at Federal Reports that look at income/class mobility over TIME rather than just in yearly spurts. A report of income mobility in America that proves that the vast majority of“the poor” do not stay poor” and the vast majority of “the rich” do not stay rich.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr180.pdf

Half of all jobs in the US pay less than $26k-can simply be re-stated as "half of all jobs in the US pay MORE than $26k.

As someone who studied economics you are aware that "income" is not the same thing as "wealth" (net worth) and neither "income" nor "wealth" is the same thing as "financial wealth". You are also aware that health insurance is not used when computing wealth and/or poverty econometrics. And statistics that measure a specific "type" of wealth or poverty do NOT apply EQUALLY to ALL discussions involving wealth or poverty.

Now I don't know where you are getting "your" statistics, or how those statistics define "poverty" but here's some from the Census bureau- "In 2010, the Census bureau said in a statement that the official poverty rate was 14.3 percent, or 1 in 7 of Americans, the highest proportion of the population since 1994. " http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html

(Obviously the poverty rate has NOT been in a constant upward climb....or EVERY new year would produce a "higher proportion of the population" than the LAST one. Duh.)

Be careful when comparing "low income" in the US stats to "poverty" stats in the US because they are NOT the same things. Don't compare family stats with individual stats either.

49 Million people without health insurance is 16.3% of the US population. (Up only 3% from 2000) http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm

Once upon a time in America-NO ONE had health insurance. What's your point here?

[-] 4 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Nobody has denied the phenomenon of upward mobility. Its old news. But EVEN AFTER you account for upward mobility, the middle class is STILL shrinking and the lower class is STILL expanding. Bankruptcy, consumer debt, and foreclosure are STILL way up.

By the way 3% over 11 years is significant. More significant is the skyrocketing cost of health insurance and the record high profits in the health care industry.

Higher charges. Higher profits. Do you deny this?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Again, the "classes" expand and contract all the time. You have NOT given ANY statistics that PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt, that ALL of the supposed "shrinkage" in the middle class is going directly TO the lower class.

Using your own logic, the skyrocketing cost of "health insurance" should ALSO have produced a "skyrocketing" increase in people who are not insured. 3% over 11 years is not a measure of "skyrocketing" reciprocity to me.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

No. Not to this degree. Such a concentration hasn't been seen since 1929. Again, I never said that every dime or individual within any class has followed the same trend as the remaining class. I'm saying that even with the exceptions, America's middle class is shrinking and its lower class expanding. America's wealth is STILL being transferred from poor to rich. In particular, the richest one percent. Its a proven fact.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Prove to me-using facts and statistics:

1-that America's middle class is shrinking-and from what "higher figure" it has shrunken from, and that it has historically always been higher than it is today. (as a percentage of the total American population adjusted over time)

2-contingent upon you proving #1-that the shrinkage has gone solely and directly to the lower class and nowhere else.

Give me a CLEAR definition of the way you are using the word "wealth" AND that every statistic you use was also determined using the exact same definition of wealth that you use it for. I'm going to bed. I'll check tomorrow to see how you replied.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

God damn it you fucking desperate pathetic diversionary tactic resorting coward. Grow up already. Stop adding more and more criteria and requiring more and more specialized time/figure frame statistics to confirm which has already been proven with a broad range. Grow up already you pathetic desperate diversionary tactic resorting coward. GROW UP. THE TRUTH ISN'T ALWAYS WHAT YOU HOPE FOR. STILL, ITS THE TRUTH. DON'T DENY IT LIKE A LITTLE BITCH. FACE IT. ACCEPT. IT. GROW UP.

Points two and three. Again, we have been through this over and over and over. Its more diversionary crap.

Fellow protestors: Don't let this coward trick you. If I were to cite figures or studies to fit it's latest criteria, it would then demand the latest figures to include each tip paid to every middle class pizza delivery guy, each square foot of middle class living space, and eventually each ounce of baby formula in middle class baby bottles. Its more desperate diversionary crap intended to make it seem as if the concentration of America's wealth (transferred from poor to rich) hasn't already been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. God damn pathetic desperate die-hard conservative partisan puppet head-in-the-sand diversionary CRAP.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

So. You admit that you use broad range statistics as if they mean the same thing as small range statistics. (they don't). And not only did you just admit that your stats don't fit the "criteria" REQUIRED by the "intellectually honest" or "truth seekers" or "critical thinkers", but your insulting, stupid, insipid, and attacking response when cornered is the complete opposite of how someone who actually FITS into one of those categories would respond when asked to clarify their research.

Someone who has spent "6 years" (your statement) doing this should know that by now. For everyone who has not spent six years at this-here's an excellent article about how to determine when someone is being intellectually honest or not-

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Like I said last night on this very page, I wanted you to insert that foot a little further into your mouth. Now that you have done so, I will proceed.

Last night, even after all our debates, you STILL couldn't bring yourself to admit that the middle class had been shrinking and the lower class had been expanding. You made another demand for statistical evidence. Well, I've got another batch for you right here.

Now that you understand what a quintile is, you should be able to follow this. Well, unless that weak conscience of yours won't allow it.

Tell you what. I take it back. You can't follow it. You can't and you won't. You will still swear that it proves nothing. You will still refuse to acknowledge the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. You just don't have the guts. Thats a fact. But for the benefit of others, I will post the statistics anyway. Right here on your sorry excuse for an 'intellectually honest' page.

The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.

Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.

So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?

Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.

Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.

Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.

Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.

But that 66.1 percent spread is nothing. It is multiplied by hundreds just within that top centile. The richest 1%.

THATS THE PROBLEM.

Nevermind justhefacts. Its name implies a lack of bias. However, its attitude shows a complete lack of regard for all 'facts' not to its liking.

Now, watch it deny the actual shrinkage of the middle class, the actual expansion of the lower class, and the actual transfer of wealth from poor to rich. In particular, the richest 1% who as of 2007, owned 43% of all financial wealth in America. Thats more than twice the share they held in 1976.

Next time, we'll discuss the years 2009 and 2010. Lets just say for now, that the trend has continued contrary to recent claims made by 'justhefacts'.

cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Do you not read the newspaper or watch the news, justthefacts?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

I do. And I double check THEIR use of stats and "facts" before I accept what they say blindly as well.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

There are tons of facts out there on this. You're just trying to exhaust everyone with your demands. I've given you facts, MC has given you facts. You're just being difficult. It's laughable for you to say that the middle class is not shrinking.

Can you tell me why you defend the interests of the 1%? Are you part of the 1% because then it might make sense? I fear, though, that you are not part of the 1% yet you defend them. Why?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

"There are tons of facts out there on this." Yes there are tons of facts. THEY DO NOT ALL SAY OR DEMONSTRATE THE SAME THINGS.

"You're just trying to exhaust everyone with your demands. I've given you facts, MC has given you facts."

You said THIS earlier: "I studied both economics and history in school and I am well aware that one can find research to support almost any argument one wants to make or back into"

And I'm trying to SHOW you that MC is doing exactly that. But apparently you don't CARE to do the checking if/when stats are manipulated to prove something YOU believe or are biased about!! What a hypocrite!

I'm NOT defending the 1% for crying out loud. I'm defending the interests of the TRUTH and refusing to let MC or anyone else manipulate it. EVEN those I AGREE WITH. It is overwhelming clear in this forum who stands for the TRUTH-whatever it is-even if it disproves one or all of their points-and those who REFUSE to examine the truth at ALL if it might prove them wrong.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

"A report of income mobility in America that proves that the vast majority of“the poor” do not stay poor” and the vast majority of “the rich” do not stay rich." I'd believe that - the economy sucks.

"Half of all jobs in the US pay less than $26k-can simply be re-stated as "half of all jobs in the US pay MORE than $26k." Okay, but half of all jobs in the U.S. still pay less than $26k. Pretty sad statistic.

"You are also aware that health insurance is not used when computing wealth and/or poverty econometrics." Too bad - that is why I don't have a lot of respect for our current economic scholars. It should include this vital aspect of human health and wealth.

"(Obviously the poverty rate has NOT been in a constant upward climb....or EVERY new year would produce a "higher proportion of the population" than the LAST one. Duh.)" First of all, I never said that, but since you bring it up: According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010,[2] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993.

"49 Million people without health insurance is 16.3% of the US population. (Up only 3% from 2000)" That's pathetic. We should be increasing the number insured not decreasing it.

"Once upon a time in America-NO ONE had health insurance. What's your point here?" It used to cost a few bucks to go to the doctor, or he'd come to your house for goodness sake. People didn't need health insurance back in the day. Come on.

And, I don't need your little lessons about the difference between income and wealth. If you weren't so snarky you might have some more fruitful discussions with people here.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

NO discussion here can be entirely fruitful if they aren't based on facts and what those facts say and DO NOT say. And people using them as baseball bats against their opponents will never , ever solve the real problems.

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

There you go again. Trying to debunk physical, mathematical, and economic FACT with spun up CRAP from right leaning think (propaganda) tanks. I see another 3 day long heated debate brewing here. For now, I'll just say this. Something that millions of ordinary people can relate to from experience.

Patient walks into doctor's office with flu-like symptoms. Doctor examines patient for 3 minutes and charges $150 (Ch'Ching!). Doctor prescribes blood tests (Ch.Ching!), CAT scan (Ch'Ching!), EKG (Ch'Ching!), and name brand pharmaceuticals (Ch'Ching!). When its all said and done, the charges add up to over $2,000. These charges are passed onto the patient either through direct billing or very expensive coverage. Doctors involved increase their six figure income, the producers of said testing equipment increase their profits, passing a portion to the executives who reap 8 figure salaries, and another portion to share holders (1/2 of which are the richest one percent, this includes the doctors), and a MUCH smaller portion onto the lower paid health care/production workers who also represent the growing demand for commercial health care.

Health care charges skyrocket. Doctors, executives, and share holders (95% of which are America's richest 5% and foreign investors) get richer.

THE PATIENTS GET POORER.

By the way, I can destroy the MYTH that the middle class have been getting richer. I can also emberass those researchers who have the nerve to say such a thing. In order to claim such a thing, they must disregard something profound and well documented but not well known.

I'll give you a clue. Think inflation.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Your example makes no sense. People don't get CT scans or EKGs when presenting with flu-like symptoms.

And, as a health care professional, I take exception to your suggestion that doctors are only trying to pad their wallets. That may be true of some, but there are corrupt people in every profession.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Yes they do. I watched it happen two months ago. Ultimately, the patient was diagnosed with exactly what I told her she had. Stomach flu. Which as you must know is not actually influenza at all. The tests weren't necessary. Still, they were administered. In fact, it was a blood test, TWO EKGs, and a CAT scan. I watched it happen.

I never said that all doctors are compromising ethics just to pad their wallets. I've known at least two that I could trust. I also agree that corruption is present in every profession. But it has a more profound impact in higher expense industries like health care.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

And "your experience" proves that it happens to "millions of ordinary people"?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

If a mosquito bites you on the arm, does it prove that "millions of ordinary people" have also been bitten?

Only you would hold out for indisputable conclusive statistical evidence including full exams of every single 'ordinary person' on the planet.

You raving lunatic psychotic diversionary tactic resorting coward.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

No, a mosquito biting me on the arm proves that I got bitten. I MIGHT infer from it that millions of ordinary people have also been bitten, and I might be able to gather enough data to PROVE my inference was correct.

IE-one mosquito bite IS NOT indisputable, conclusive, statistical evidence. It's a beginning.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Thanks, ModestCapitalist. Good example.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

You're welcome but it won't make any difference to justhefacts. He/she/they will write another long essay trying to debunk the example which I will have no choice but to respond to. Probably with another long essay.

Did you watch the video?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

What video? I'm glad you have the patience to detail your responses so but I missed the video.

And, you know, I had the flu a couple of years ago and was told by a doctor (there was one on the premises) that I was having a heart attack and so all of those tests may have ensued had I not stopped it myself. Seems some people confuse stomach flu with heart attacks.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

The video of Robert Reich addressing OWS. He explains the concentration of wealth and part of the horrible downside.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Your link is bad, but I did find a video of Reich with Occupy. He's intense for such a little guy but he's saying the same things many of us have been saying in this forum. Nice.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I don't know what happened to the link. It was good yesterday. I'm glad you found the video though. I'm going to have to search Youtube for the same video or possibly the long version, go back and replace all the links I've posted so far.

Did you watch the one where he explains the stagnating wages, transfer of wealth from poor to rich, and the effect had on economic stability?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

No. I saw a more generally one where he quickly addressed the crowd and spewed a lot of the same stats we do here. I'll have to look harder for that one. There are several of him with Occupy. I don't really need these videos, though, I get it, I'm on board. Send them to the trolls. LOL!

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Thats cool. By the way. I do have another batch of statistics right here to prove (again) that the middle class is shrinking and the lower class is expanding. They are 100% conclusive. They also prove the concentration of wealth primarily to the richest one percent. I'm just waiting for Justhefacts to respond to my last entry and put its foot a little deeper into its mouth. Then, I will post the statistics and the source.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

I read most of your fact-filled post below but I have to run at the moment. It's excellent. I was just telling one of the people on here that what they are telling us to read (libertarian economics) is analysis of the facts. What is important are the actual facts themselves, the facts that you outline extremely well. Those numbers are indisputable. Economic analysis, of course, is, but they cannot deny the poverty statistics in this country!

[-] -3 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Poor MC-you already admitted, in print, here in this forum, that you are "not an expert" and that you "know the basics". So I've provided some words from real experts below. I'm sure they would be very aware of whatever "profound and well documented" thing you could possibly know. If you'd like to prove that THEY (the experts) have "disregarded" it, be my guest.

Here are some “experts” in Economics and some expert analysis of research done on economic findings in America that say that “the poor are not getting poorer”.

A report of income mobility in America that proves that the vast majority of“the poor” do not stay poor” and the vast majority of “the rich” do not stay rich.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr180.pdf

The next link is from an article written by David R. Henderson in 1998. (I realize that’s 13 years ago, but it proves that historically the “the poor were not getting poorer” PRE 1998 either. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution. He is also an associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6416

Here’s a blog by Michael Smith MBA, CFP®-Not only the article, but the discussion in the comments section details how incorrect it is to view the “wealth” in America as some kind of “pie” and not an “open system”.

http://www.financialfinesse.com/blog/2011/08/are-the-rich-really-getting-richer-and-the-poor-really-getting-poorer/

Here’s an article by Walter E. Williams who holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College (1967-69), California State University (1967-1971) and Temple University (1973-1980)

His conclusion in the following article? –“The bottom line is, the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer/page/full/

Here’s an article by Mark Thoma-a Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/11/inequality-and-.html

An article by Mark J Sperry, Professor of Economics and Finance

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-you-do-time-lapse-analysis-instead.html

An article from the Daily Caller:

"According to the research, published at The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, from Cornell economist Richard Burkhauser, Joint Committee on Taxation economist Jeff Larrimore, and Indiana University economist Kosali Simon, while the rich have indeed been getting richer, for the last 30 years so too have the poor and middle class."

“The bottom line is [conventional wisdom] asks what’s been happening to private personal income over time and they are right if you look at that for tax units, things do not look very good for the middle class,” he said. “But if you take other things into account, the reason the country has not gotten in a civil war is because things are not that bad. In fact everybody has done better.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/26/economic-study-despite-obamas-claim-the-poor-are-not-getting-poorer/#ixzz1iLYYTZND

And the last is a blog post about using arguments (which he calls myths) “ based on the US gini coefficient increasing by about 10% since WWII.”

http://critiquesofcollectivism.blogspot.com/2011/07/rich-get-richer-and-poor-get-poorer.html

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I've read those reports and/or the like many times. I know exactly what they are based on. Household income by quintile over the last 30+ years and the phenomenon of upward mobility adjusted for inflation.

Here is what those die-hard conservative propaganda spewing partisan puppets know DAMN WELL but conveniently left out for the sake of their own one sided SOLD OUT arguments.

ENERGY, FOOD, AND HOME SALE PRICES ARE NOT CONSIDERED WHEN CORE INFLATION IS CALCULATED. THE CHARGES FOR KEY ITEMS LIKE ENERGY, FOOD, HEALTHCARE, HOME SALE PRICES, AND HIGHER EDUCATION HAVE RISEN FAR BEYOND CORE INFLATION. WAGES FOR THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE REMAINED FLAT FOR OVER 30 YEARS ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION. HOUSEHOLD INCOMES HAVE RISEN ON AVERAGE ONLY BECAUSE SO MANY MORE HOUSEHOLDS NOW REQUIRE 2ND PROVIDERS, MORE OVERTIME, RETIREES GOING BACK TO WORK, ECT JUST TO MAKE ENDS MEET. THEREFORE, THE OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM THAT THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES HAVE BECOME RICHER IS BASED ON SPUN UP HALF-WIT DIE-HARD CONSERVATIVE HEAD-IN-THE-SAND PARTISAN PUPPET CRAP.

Like I said, I've read those reports and/or the like many times. Only a die-hard conservative partisan puppet would take them at face value.

Say that reminds me.

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.

Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.

Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.

One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY

I don't know what happened to the link. It was good yesterday. Just go to youtube and search keywords Robert Reich OWS.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

You may post this 1 million times and it will never make you a million times more right.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Fortunately, the truth doesn't need to be multiplied every time its posted. It remains just as true regardless.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

It has to actually BE true in the first place.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

It is. Even your stubborn ass admitted the ACTUAL TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM POOR TO RICH just a few days ago. Unfortunately, it was too much for that weak conscience of yours to handle so you did a 180 to protect yourself.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Did I state outright and without equivocation that ALL of the "wealth" (defined as "net worth") being transferred to the rich CAME directly from the poor? Because if I did I was completely out of my mind to have said such a thing.

Please provide my exact statement in order that I might clarify it according to the definition of "wealth" that I believed was being discussed between us OR completely retract it.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

No you didn't and neither did I. Again, we have been through this.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 12 years ago

Your an ass

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

and you created this ID just this morning specifically to say so. Pathetic.

Next.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 12 years ago

I created it to be on this forum. Your not special. Ass.

[+] -5 points by DependentClass (19) 12 years ago

Many of the poor were imported poor and have stayed poor because many have junior high or lower educational attainment. 6th grade educations and a modern economy don't mix, well, unless you're OK with cleaning toilets for a lifetime.

Liberals need some education too. A course on cause and affect would help them understand what an open border and mass immigration adds up to.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Gee. You just stereotyped all poor people. And, then you stereotyped liberals.

So, let's say your ridiculous stereotype about the poor was right (It's not because half of all jobs in this country pay less than $26k per year and half of this country does not have less than a 6th grade education. LOL!), would that make them any less worthy as human beings? Is that how you value people? On their material success? Can you not find a morsel of compassion for the needy?

[-] -2 points by DependentClass (19) 12 years ago

That's just hilarious. Yeah, I guess what I wrote has no basis in fact. LOL. Yeah, it's ridiculous to make this connection between immigration, utterly unskilled people, jobs like dish washing and poverty. Huh, what was I thinking? LOL.

You can have all the compassion you want, but at least don't be so fucking stupid as to import poverty and then not expect more poverty. Geesch, it's just amazing. Compassion doesn't undo the consequences of an open border. People can have all the worth in the world, but that too doesn't offer some immunity to the consequences of an open border.

Want less poverty? At least have the brains to stop importing more.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

I don't get your argument. First of all, this is a nation of immigrants. Did your family come over on the mayflower? Second, who do you want to wash the dishes? Third, do you not revere the hard work of the working poor?

[-] -2 points by DependentClass (19) 12 years ago

Oh Lord, that also doesn't create immunity from the consequences. Truly, it is that complicated to understand the difference between today and 110 years ago? 110 years ago, immigrants were about a match to the educational/skills level of what was here. Now, there's a vast difference. The average attainment of the U.S. population is about 1 year post-high school. What comes across, in particular, our southern border is lucky to made it through 6th grade. Ever see the barrios of places like Houston, L.A., Phoenix, Miami and San Antonio and ask yourself, huh, where'd that come from? Seriously, think at least a little bit.

We not only have had huge immigration, we've had a huge education/skills gap. Combine that with a high birth rate and under-participation in educational attainment of their kids and you have explosive poverty.

Who do I want to wash dishes? Seriously? We've touched off a servant class. You like that? I don't. It isn't my vision for the country. You should look up elasticity. Many of these servant jobs have been created simply out of the low wages needed to absorb the supply. Restaurants have exploded and that's bad.

Revere hard work? More emotional nonsense. No, I don't revere having a servant class. I revere border control and having the brains to know that importing poverty increases poverty.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

Emotion is what separates humans from animals. So what exactly is your argument? I don't understand. You are mad at immigrants for wanting to work hard? You want them to go back? I still don't understand who you would have replace them in the very low paying, back breaking jobs that they do.

Gee, the poor just can't win. On the one hand they're just lazy asses according to many of you, and on the other, they shouldn't come here to find work. What should they do?

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

If here legally, welcome them with open arms. If here illegally, send them back to country of origin. Why do you stereotype American citizens as unwilling to do back breaking work? That is silly, as I know many non immigrants that do low paying back breaking work.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23772) 12 years ago

True that, and I wonder, do they earn a living wage? I guess I just don't like all the attacks against people who are just trying to survive.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

Some do and some don't. When we were down and outers we pooled rent and grocery and shared and things worked out. None of us were over weight, but we always stayed warm, and had enough to eat. Most of us made our way eventually.

[-] 2 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

I'm a lib and know they equal unemployment, underemployment, and a lot more. You can thanks Lou Dobbs and experience for my education on this.

However, knock off the generalizations around me, there're getting really old after four months of right-wing lies about libs.

I like guns too but I'm a Socialist that WILL tax anyone into the poor house. Got it?

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

You sound like a greedy Fidel Castro type. Get it?

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

Got it and gonna get more, you?

[-] -1 points by DependentClass (19) 12 years ago

Liberals regularly smear about anyone in favor of border control as racist. Controlling immigration means we're an unjust racist nation. So, we import drop-outs that will obviously have persistently low incomes. Then, we're an unjust racist nation because we have a bunch of brown people living in poverty.

Cause and affect isn't a strong point for liberals. Support mass immigration of poor unskilled people in the morning and then wring one's hands about poverty in the afternoon and deny the two are connected.

[-] 2 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

Wow, clearly you can't read or comprehend. Keep trolling.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

I think we've discussed this already; my personal complaint is not with the amount of money that may or may not be present at the top, but with how it was acquired (in a particular subset of those cases, as we discussed earlier in another thread) and the fact that the fallout from those particular means of acquisition led to a collapse that cost large numbers of innocent people their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods. That is what I want to see addressed.

As far as the rich not creating jobs, you are right that it is not an intrinsic trait of all rich people to refuse to put their money to productive use. What is true, however, is that there is little to no job growth being achieved by our current set of policies, which for the most part appear to remain based around the idea that what's good for the firm is good for the country, and vice versa, and thus I would argue that we need to look outside that box.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

But I have seen no determination of exactly "how" that money was acquired, specifically, and would that not be IMPORTANT in order to determine that those specific means (the how) were in fact what led to the collapse? Were those the "only" thing that led to that collapse? If not, what percentage of the problem was caused by "those means"?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

The article we discussed earlier does take the beginnings of a look at some of those cases, in particular stating that the topmost group of the literal 1% was comprised largely of massive amounts of new money coming in from the financial services industry. While the entire industry cannot entirely be blamed for what happened in 2008, it is clear that the creativity and avarice of a subset of this industry, comprised largely of large conglomerates seeking ever greater returns outpaced its common sense and led to a bubble that on popping did an incredible amount of damage to our economy.

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 12 years ago

Libertarian propaganda from CATO, a Koch-funded propaganda mill with the explicit purpose of Libertarian culture warfare.

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 12 years ago

Oops I said "Koch-funded" but I should have said "Koch-FOUNDED" since Charles Koch created it in 1977.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Are you saying that when someone you don't personally like, or approve of, or side with uses a provable "fact"-it automatically and without exception becomes an "UNfact"?

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 12 years ago

What does my personal opinion or approval have to do with the provable "fact" that the CATO institute and its employees are paid by the Koch empire to wage Libertarian culture warfare against the 99%?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

The "facts" about who or what they are, or might be, has ZERO to do with whether or not the FACTS in the article are true or not.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Poor, poor little rich boys.

They're always being picked on for supporting things like Cato.

I'll bet they're crying in their $50 shot of scotch.

Tax deductible, of course. It's all business.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Prove the facts wrong.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Post one.

Go ahead. I dare you.

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

I believe you are jealous Shooz.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

It's shooz, and no I'm not jealous.

I'm pissed off that the very people that have stereotyped OWS, have the nerve to post this drivel.

Claiming what, from who?

The same old lies repackaged, and told by one of high priests of libe(R)tarianism?

OccupyWallStreet!!!

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

Go occupy a job, or a food shelf or homeless shelter, or something useful. You occupiers need to try harder to help us down and outers.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Haven't you been paying attention, again?

That's what the rich folks are doing for you now.

That's what the threads about.

[-] 1 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 12 years ago

"occupy a job" ... a job like, for example, being paid to parrot RUDY F'ING GIULIANI's "clever" anti-Occupy line, originally broadcast on FOX news, on Occupy message boards? Oh wait, I bet you are going to say you thought of that line yourself, in about 15 minutes...

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

The Great and Holy High Priest, of the First Church of the Invisible Hand, has spoken the truth to the filthy, unwashed, dirty hippie, lazy, jobless, mis-educated, unemployed, shiftless, unbelieving, commie, socialist, democracy obsessed, entitled, union thugs, of OWS!!!!!

My answer to Mr. Tanner?

OccupyWallStreet!!!!!!

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

If you cannot defend your positions with logic and facts, don't expect anyone to embrace them except fools and the uneducated.

Responding like you did, is pretty much evidence that you don't have anything more convincing to offer.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Sure buddy.

He offered NOTHING but his CATO opinion.

Not facts.

CATO was created to be a pure propaganda mill for the libe(R)tarians.

In these days of multi pronged marketing/PR, it is a leader, but it does so for nefarious purposes..

Judging by your comment. It's a very effective strategy.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Every single "truth" in his article is a KNOWN fact to economists or anyone else that has done in-depth analysis of the "rich" in America.

You stating otherwise just demonstrates that you either didn't know them-or you don't care what the truth really is.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

What part of dedicated propaganda mill are you misunderstanding?

I'll try and explain it, as best as I can.

Multi pronged marketing/PR, is it's latest iteration.

You should also look into the list of major donors to CATO.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

PROVE the STATEMENTS made in the article are not facts or admit that you cannot. Everything else you say is beside that point.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

The one on taxes is misdirection.

He used different metrics in the response.

Job creation, as much as I'd like believe it, has proven to be false.

That's enough for me to dismiss the rest as similar misdirection.

CATO, is a propaganda mill.

Now you, prove it's not.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Mr. Tanner posted three different statistics to prove one flawed stereotype. And that stereotype involved two different metrics on it's own-one "the fair share" myth, and two the "Warren Buffet to secretary" ratio.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Sorry. It wasn't in the post.

So we're 50/50

Now, prove what I asked.

Libe(R)tarians are notorious for not answering questions.

It's an MO for them.

Think out side the cage.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

"It wasn't in the post" What wasn't in what post?

Your assumptions about what people of a specific political type/party are notorious for or not is irrelevant.

Remind me...what exactly did you ask?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Guess you got lost.

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

Shooz is blinded by his hazed over, utopian night mare of a dream of an all equal society of poor people, that have gotten there, because all people that have more than he are rich, "shit." I know this sounds bizarre, but in Shooz's hazed over brain, this is reality, and those who don't see it are reality deniers.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

You funny guy, for typing nothing but air.

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

Go to the ER and get a shot of Thorazine.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Go to Manpower and get a job, ya bum.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Oh I already know that. I'm just seeing how many times he posts something HE thinks is true (opinion) under the guise that everyone else defines a "fact" that way too.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 12 years ago

I agree stereotypes are hurting this cause. It's the stereotypes on both sides that makes this ordeal nonsense. Not many people are educated on what is happening, I think OWS should have been about educating everyone first and then trying to protest. To try to gather all of the facts that sparked this movement, I'll first show this bit Rachel Maddow did on her show. I don't think the video was updated, but Reaganomics was not voted off that weekend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjlvRoPvWI4

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Don't believe this outrageous crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes in America and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.

Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group. It's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay a MUCH higher rate simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.

Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs (followed by attorneys, doctors, and celebrities). Plus 40% of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it.

The income for richest one percent has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth.

In 1976 (when their tax rates were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 21 percent of all private income and hold 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.

Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. Not even close. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Not even close. Their share as a group represents about their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, the 2nd percentile actually pays a slightly higher rate on average than the top percentile.

The richest 500 Americans hold more personal wealth than the lower 150 million Americans combined. These richest 500 Americans pay an effective rate of under 15%.

If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with. After all, this obscene concentration of wealth actually CAUSES economic instability. It CAUSES poverty. It will CAUSE the next Great Depression.

No more excuses.

RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 12 years ago

The reasons the rich pay so much in charity is because they get a tax break, and a lot of these charity foundations are fraud that embezzle the money right back to the rich.

[-] 0 points by elpinio (213) 12 years ago

Outstanding! Absolutely great article.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

I like you. Although professional athletes do get paid too much.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

What someone gets paid, or whether that amount is "fair or not" is another discussion in which we would all have to agree what 'fair' means.

[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

I don't care what they get paid what I know is that at the moment they are paid too much.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

You're preaching to the "Chior". The vast majority of people who post on here and who condem the rich, don't have a clear idea of who the "evil rich and wealthy" are. All they know is someone made 9 million in bonus and they think everyone who is successful is "evil".

You can post all the stats you want but those who reject your facts

A. Have never been in business

B. Have never been involved in running a business

C. Are just entering the work force

D. Think because someone has more then them ( taught by our schools) that it's unfair.

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

I know I know. But my own moral core refuses to allow them to spread their propaganda freely without resistance. I'm not here to convince those who refuse to learn for themselves of anything. I'm only here to provide counter evidence for those who are smart enough to know there's something wrong with their arguments-but not WHAT that wrong is yet.

[-] 0 points by SpartacusTheSlave (60) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

That's such a stereotype.

[-] 0 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

Job creators create jobs when it fits their interests. ” While the recession has thrown millions of Americans out of work, the rich have been getting even richer.” your "truth" is just the amount of millionaires not what is in the bank. What about the 64% that are still rich?

Example: 10% income tax is 5% in the bank of person a 10% is 30% of person b.

Now help me organize this.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

Yes and their rich because of their best interests not yours. They donate because they are trying to balance out being rich and knowing of others that aren't.

Second point. Why the hell would they care about everyone else that is not rich when they made it on their own?

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

I only said job creation I did not say anything about charity. I do not mean everyone

Job creation does mean profit.

Altruism sometimes does taste good. Mudita is one of the opposite Schadenfreude. Thus there are some that enjoy giving joy as long as it does not affect them negatively

Ayn Rand writes a lot about self interest. I am not not a fan or worshiper of Rand.

What I should add is that there is no black and white just only many shades of gray in many philosophical concepts such as morality. So I should change my statement that only mean some not all.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

It wouldn't hurt to not speak in absolutes.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

That is what I want to do.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

Oh shoot sorry I missed that.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

What I meant is that I need help with it.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

Ok well then I apologize for my confusion. I agree it is tough sometimes.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

So let me ask:

Have you ever been involved in "being a job creator"? Do you even know what's involved in "hiring people"? Do you even know how to "manage a business or start up a business"?

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

Have you ever considered that job destruction exist?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Not sure exactly what you are asking...saying.

Wage income is different than "interest or investment" income. You can't compare them as if they define the same things. They don't.

Wealth in econ discussions (by economists-not the average person) usually refers to "net worth"-which means something different than "financial wealth" or "asset wealth". "Income tax" is different than "estate tax" or "capital gains tax". I cannot sort them out (organize) for you if I have no idea which ONES you mean...specifically.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

Language is not my forte so I do have concepts that is very difficult for me to convey.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 12 years ago

"Michael Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow."

So he can go fuck himself.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

If OWS just came out and said what it is (A liberal Dem Movement), it would most likely gain more support. Because it pretends to hide behind the "We have no affiliation" tag, and people can see right through it, it will to be very limited in it's success. I believe that until they come out with the truth about what they are, they are dooming themselves.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

fu go watch fox news.

[-] 0 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

lol, you crack me up with that. Everyone who questions the motives and allegences with OWS must watch fox news. Instead of providing a view to the contrary, that is the best you could come up with? LMAO!

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

yea, keep selling yourself that line...

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

So James, tell me is OWS a Liberal Dem movement or not? You have so far avoided the questions so since you feel the need to keep posting on this thread, please tell us what it is.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Yes. I believe that IS the best they have to offer. And it's not funny. It's sad.

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

Although I agree with you that it is really not funny, they have done nothing to lend themselves the ability to be taken in a serious manner. Until they do, all we can do is laugh.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

That's only if what you think they are, is really WHAT they are.

I'm beginning to believe that it's far, far worse and that OWS knows that if anyone finds out, and can PROVE, who and what they are up to, they'll be worse than doomed.

[Removed]