American Politics

Host: jayackroyd

Jump right in!

Mote Members: Log in Home
Post

They seem to be at the anger stage. They'll be at the make a bargain stage next.

45457. RickNelson - 12/1/2012 3:18:36 PM

Concerned emphatically states:
"Income inequality decreased under GWB"

That is a lie concerned. You're using a false source and that's a bad way to forward your point of view. Unless this is just a game to you, and you're just playing. I've seen that from many purile sources around the web. Many, many play a role, and work it to death. Sad, sad, sad.



CBPP page where Bush is shown to have created the highest levels of income inequality, and it's obvious Obama has not


This first link is important, because it allows for free use of the website at CBPP, this second is the direct link to the page that shows Concerned is making a huge error when making a claim that Obama's policies have been the cause of huge income disparity. The fastest growth of disparity is from the early 80's to the mid 2000's. This will include Clinton. Clinton, tool Clinton.

The CBPP page can be gotten to directly at this link

45458. RickNelson - 12/1/2012 4:40:31 PM

CBPP a source for reviewing facts!

45459. RickNelson - 12/1/2012 4:47:28 PM

Reality and truth, not for the faint hearted

The link above didn't work, this does.

45460. concerned - 12/2/2012 7:45:01 PM

Re. 45457 -

Namecalling again?

As a matter of fact, a study by Picketty and Saez shows that the share of income for the top 1% dropped significantly from 2002-2006.

When you consider that the Bush tax cuts reduced the bottom tax rate from 15 to 10%, then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush tax cuts actually contributed to *reducing* income inequality.



Congressional democrats took economic matters pretty much out of Bush's hands in 2007 by inflating the real estate bubble which precipitated crashing the real estate market in 2008.

Since then, and continuing under 0bama, income inequality has been increasing, as described in, of all places, the Huffington Post: Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush.

excerpt:

Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.

Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

So it seems it's your own side you're hatin' on, RN. Time for you to rethink, wouldn't you say? Will you be a good sport and retract your false accusaion?

45461. arkymalarky - 12/2/2012 7:47:42 PM

As the effects of the Bush economy crushed everyone else, the 1% made out like bandits.

45462. concerned - 12/2/2012 7:51:08 PM

A recent study shows the 'Buffett Rule' would only result in $8 B of new revenue, and, of course, repealing the Bush cuts for the two top brackets wouldn't garner more than $50 B, and that's assuming people in these brackets won't reallocate their incomes to reduce exposure, or even leave the country, which they surely would do, possibly negating any revenue increase whatsoever from such a change.

Face it, the only possible reason the Democrats want these tax rate increases is because it would provide class war propaganda for their low information supporters. No person of at least normal acumen should fall for this ruse.

45463. concerned - 12/2/2012 7:53:00 PM

Re. 45461 -

Arky gets an 'F' for reading comprehension. Out to lunch much, Arky?

Here's a clue - 0bama was president since 2009, not Bush.

45464. arkymalarky - 12/2/2012 7:57:29 PM

So?

45465. concerned - 12/2/2012 7:58:41 PM

Arky is as bad as JAH but with less excuse - I shudder to think of the poor children that were propagandized by anybody with such a biased, unknowledgable understanding of reality - their idea of 'the rich' seems to come straight from Richie Rich comic books where they imagine 'the rich' sitting in their vaults showering themselves with gold coins and jewels while cackling insanely. IAC, that's exactly the mentality they project when they post, and they always come up whining and lying when presented with real facts.

Grow up, you two. You are really pathetic in your partisan hack delusions.

45466. concerned - 12/2/2012 8:01:45 PM

The recession ended in June 2009. Any administration that can't fix the economy in the three years plus after that either isn't trying or is totally incompetent. That's undeniably so.

45467. concerned - 12/2/2012 8:03:58 PM

Nobody ever got a good job from a poor person and no government bureaucrat ever added value to any product.

45468. concerned - 12/2/2012 8:09:11 PM

You would think Liberals of good conscience would be up in arms over the 0bamacare provisions that are forcing companies like Walmart to cut worker hours to less than 30 so that they do not have to provide massively expensive health insurance.

This is putting millions, if not tens of millions of US workers even farther behind economically, and all because of a callous Leftist health care power grab.

I cannot regard any Democrat who isn't concerned about this as a person of good conscience.

45469. arkymalarky - 12/2/2012 8:40:56 PM

Hahahaha! I'm just so thankful my kids are so much smarter than you.

45470. arkymalarky - 12/2/2012 8:41:47 PM

I simply do not believe you are for real.

45471. Wombat - 12/2/2012 11:10:27 PM

Teabag for brains...

45472. judithathome - 12/3/2012 2:17:38 AM

I think he's a fraud...getting paid by the word.

That's okay...living well...and sane...is the best revenge.

45473. judithathome - 12/3/2012 2:19:15 AM

Got to admit...this: Arky is as bad as JAH but with less excuse was meant to be a double sting; a cut above his usual drool.

45474. RickNelson - 12/3/2012 5:05:33 AM

I think the actual source and my own understanding show the truth better than that article

I don't know who Alexander Eichler is, but his interpretations are just that. Guess work, without facts. I don't find any data from the CBO listing any income distribution beyond 2009. We know that all lands on Bush. Bush caused the disparity and his tax cut is the reason. Denying this is futile, there is no data at present to argue otherwise.

The only reasoning I accept is that which shows the data, gives the account of context and is reliable over time. The CBO qualifies. If by some chance, there is data from the CBO, which I couldn't find, please show it.

45475. concerned - 12/3/2012 6:07:58 AM

Re. 45469 -

Then they would have to be genius level. From the level of your posting, an impossibility.

American Politics