Page 5 of 34 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 336

Thread: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

  1. #41
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Much of the inequality is compounded by jobs being shipped overseas and to Mexico, thus keeping profits high and allowing the stock market to make it's recovery. You may also remember in 2010 that Congress decided to not increase many of social federal spending programs because they said cost of living was "flat" thus, anyone not in any kind of management position, would feel the burn more so. There is no one answer why there is this inequality, it is certainly preventable.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  2. #42
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum View Post
    Derogatory? It was started by Regan talk to the Dead Prez not the people who repeat it.
    In 1896, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous "Cross of Gold" speech:

    There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.[17]

    The Merriam-Webster Dictionary notes that the first known use of trickle-down as an adjective meaning "relating to or working on the principle of trickle-down theory" was in 1944,[18] while the first known use of trickle-down theory was in 1954.[19]

    After leaving the Presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, alleged, "Republicans [...] simply don't know how to manage the economy. They're so busy operating the trickle-down theory, giving the richest corporations the biggest break, that the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket." [1]

    Speaking on the Senate floor in 1992, Sen. Hank Brown said, "Mr. President, the trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not. To attribute to people who have advocated the opposite in policies is not only inaccurate but poisons the debate on public issues."[20]

    Thomas Sowell claimed that, despite its political prominence, no trickle-down theory has ever existed among economists.[6] In response, many critics referred him to Stockman's remarks to Greider. Sowell replied in his newspaper columns.[21] Stockman himself had not proposed or advocated the alleged theory, so Sowell rejected him as an example of someone who had done so. Additionally, Stockman had not specifically named anyone who, or quoted a source that, advocated the theory although he did claim that the theory was being adhered to by the Reagan administration. Sowell replied that Stockman "was not even among the first thousand people to make that claim" but that "not one of those who made the claim could provide a single quote from anybody who had advocated a 'trickle-down theory.'"[6]
    Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  3. #43
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    All this proves is that Keynsian economics does not benefit the masses.

    But it also bolsters my signature.
    Keynesian economics helps minimize the impact of the economic crises (that are an occurrence in a market prevalent system) by way of protecting short term profit. The only groups that has any real issue with fiscal and monetary policy are the socialists/communists/marxists.

    A severe economic crisis is how an economic revolution begins.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 03-07-12 at 02:18 AM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #44
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum View Post
    There are several adjustments that as conservative and liberals we could probably agree on. It is unfortunate that the two sides in office are so stupid and divided that they can't see how wasteful they are.

    There are two things I would do. Bring most or all troops home, they are overseas helping other countries economies. Cut spending to go into research and defense of the borders and space agency.

    With this money saved we could implement UHC, and save everyday Americans close to $6k per year. In which they could use to spend on the economy. That amount of aggregate demand (750 billion) would be the size of the stimulus but done every year by good old American citizens.
    This post right here is part and parcel of what I posted. Getting government more involved in healthcare will not, I repeat will not push costs down. It will do the opposite and the winners will be the politically connected and the losers will be those paying taxes.

    HSA's--good limited health care policy, dead under Obama care.
    Catatstrophic coverage for low income earners, dead under Obama care.

    If it will save so much money you have to explain to me why premiums are rising faster now instead of slower.

    My response is to get rid of the ability of the 1% to buy influence by making government both weaker and more transparent and take regulation and legislation tilted towards larger busineses more able to buy influence off the table. Your argument is to have government do more. The more government can do the more it can screw up for the little guy who has lesser means to correct it.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,167

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum View Post
    “In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”
    And.... there's the problem with most of the occupy crowd. They stand behind trees waiting to "capture" any income gains that might happen by. When nothing falls into their lap, they cry about the 1% capturing everything for themselves.

    With some more complaining and some more time standing behind trees, perhaps the next time some income gains are "released" they might fare better in "capturing" them.

  6. #46
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%
    This is why it is so very poetic that Romney will be the representative of the 1% in the big battle with the 99% coming up in November. If it this had been scripted for a movie, there is no one better they could have chosen than the King of the 1% himself to represent his kind.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    This is why it is so very poetic that Romney will be the representative of the 1% in the big battle with the 99% coming up in November. If it this had been scripted for a movie, there is no one better they could have chosen than the King of the 1% himself to represent his kind.
    Personally I suspect that, for some reason or another, it has been planned that the GOP would not win '08 or '12. As in "not even try" sort of thing.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum View Post
    “In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”

    The 10 page update offers a clear picture of how income shares have varied over different business cycles, as well as the long-term trends since 1917. Top income shares fell dramatically after World War II, stayed flat, then began to rise in the early 1980s and have returned to their pre-War levels.




    The top 10% in the US take now take home about 47% of all income, but this is driven by the top 1% who account for 20%.

    The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.

    Saez suggests that this “may … help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been a great level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate since 2005.”

    Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1% « Economics for public policy
    Did you mean to say over 90% of obama stimulus money that put us in the poor house went to union gov workers?

  9. #49
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Personally I suspect that, for some reason or another, it has been planned that the GOP would not win '08 or '12. As in "not even try" sort of thing.

    Even though their campaign strategy since 2010 has pissed off hispanics, blacks, women and the working class, I don't believe it has been their intent. I think in their zeal to beat Obama, they have just pushed the moderates away from their party, including possible contenders that might have beaten Obama.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Even though their campaign strategy since 2010 has pissed off hispanics, blacks, women and the working class, I don't believe it has been their intent. I think in their zeal to beat Obama, they have just pushed the moderates away from their party, including possible contenders that might have beaten Obama.
    I do believe it has been intentional. Who knows if the candidates take themselves seriously or not, but Americans don't. Sure the dyed in the wool Republican voters will rally behind whoever the GOP throws at them, but there is no genuine excitement about any of them. And as for '08, I don't need to point to anything more than 1) Romney ducking out early and 2) Palin. It was a throw away. This year will be too, if I'm putting money on it.

    We are passive recipients of who the parties and power structures behind them deliver to us. It's not democratic, and nothing's really going to change.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 03-08-12 at 10:15 PM.

Page 5 of 34 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •