• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reaganomics and income inequality

D

Diving Mullah

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
1,012
Location
Planet Earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There's more evidence of a widening wealth inequality gap in America thanks to 30-plus years of Reaganomics. According to The Atlantic magazine - two-thirds of all new income in America between 2002 and 2007 went to just the top 1% of Americans. That's 2 out of every 3 dollars in America being sucked up by the richest of the rich.
Not to mention - that the wealthiest 400 Americans - our nation's most senior oligarchs, who own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans - have seen their incomes double over the last twelve years while their tax rates have been cut in half. Talk about a "for the rich, by the rich" economy. Wealth inequality in America is at levels not seen since the 1920's - and we're now a more unequal nation than the Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Kazakhstan according to data from the CIA Factbook.

So when the entire American middle class disappears, then can we all accept that Reagan's vision of America - and the direction that the current Republican Party has this nation headed - will lead us all toward ruin?
 
Diving Mullah said:
There's more evidence of a widening wealth inequality gap in America thanks to 30-plus years of Reaganomics. According to The Atlantic magazine - two-thirds of all new income in America between 2002 and 2007 went to just the top 1% of Americans. That's 2 out of every 3 dollars in America being sucked up by the richest of the rich.
Not to mention - that the wealthiest 400 Americans - our nation's most senior oligarchs, who own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans - have seen their incomes double over the last twelve years while their tax rates have been cut in half. Talk about a "for the rich, by the rich" economy. Wealth inequality in America is at levels not seen since the 1920's - and we're now a more unequal nation than the Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Kazakhstan according to data from the CIA Factbook.

So when the entire American middle class disappears, then can we all accept that Reagan's vision of America - and the direction that the current Republican Party has this nation headed - will lead us all toward ruin?
Click to expand...

Is three some researched based theory here, or just personal opinion?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059762969 said:
Is three some researched based theory here, or just personal opinion?
Click to expand...

He cited the research done by The Atlantic magazine.
 
Diving Mullah said:
There's more evidence of a widening wealth inequality gap in America thanks to 30-plus years of Reaganomics. According to The Atlantic magazine - two-thirds of all new income in America between 2002 and 2007 went to just the top 1% of Americans. That's 2 out of every 3 dollars in America being sucked up by the richest of the rich.
Not to mention - that the wealthiest 400 Americans - our nation's most senior oligarchs, who own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans - have seen their incomes double over the last twelve years while their tax rates have been cut in half. Talk about a "for the rich, by the rich" economy. Wealth inequality in America is at levels not seen since the 1920's - and we're now a more unequal nation than the Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Kazakhstan according to data from the CIA Factbook.

So when the entire American middle class disappears, then can we all accept that Reagan's vision of America - and the direction that the current Republican Party has this nation headed - will lead us all toward ruin?
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I am with you on all of that, but why do you post your "lean" as "very conservative"? Your going to be called a socialist by the many conservatives on this board who will expect you to "toe the line" of right wing rhetoric.
 
Diving Mullah said:
Wealth inequality in America is at levels not seen since the 1920's - and we're now a more unequal nation than the Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Kazakhstan according to data from the CIA Factbook.
Click to expand...

And of course, any good liberal wants equal misery for all. Right? Oh, wait. You're "Very Conservative". As opposed to Marx?

Yes, this is an opinion piece. He may cite research done by the Atlantic, but they cite "what" not "why". Research that says Big Mac sales are down says just that. It doesn't say that they are down because a political party doesn't want me to eat them. That would be opinion.

In my opinion, if you want to know why the middle class is shrinking, why not look to Big Government programs that make it easier to survive poor than to move up to the middle class. Why work hard and pay for welfare, when you can squeak by and get paid by welfare?

As for our economy, would you care to name a successful economy that was "for the poor, by the poor"? Seriously, there is some really silly stuff in the opinion part of your post.
 
stevil said:
Why work hard and pay for welfare, when you can squeak by and get paid by welfare?
Click to expand...

I'm still terribly surprised that stuff like this is the standard counter argument for the disparity of wealth that has been growing over the last 30 years. It takes about 2 seconds to find overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you want to live in the dream world that all poor people are lazy AND none of them want to strive for something beyond poverty, fine. You even have the convenience of comparing working people to working people:
Historical CEO compensation - Forbes.com
 
pdog said:
I'm still terribly surprised that stuff like this is the standard counter argument for the disparity of wealth that has been growing over the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

"The disparity of wealth that has been growing over the last 30 years" is not an argument, so whatever you're complaining about is not really a counter-argument.

Here's where the partisan fools are going wrong.

Step 1) Observe growing wealth gap spanning 30 years.
Step 2) Look to see who became president 30 years ago.
Step 3) Consider whether you identify with the political party to which that president belonged.
Step 4) If not, blame that president. Note: if you do identify with that political party, blame a predecessor or successor instead.

Q: Whose sh*t do we buy?
A: The sh*t the top 1% (corporations) produce and distribute to us.

All together now: Consumers (including the middle class) are destroying themselves. No one will pay more for goods and services produced locally and humbly. No one. Because that's irrational. When we all cost-minimize, we reward the companies who also cost-minimize. And the ones who cost minimize best are the ones with the economies of scale. We all buy from the top, we get all their cheap sh*t, and they get all our money. Yes, it really really is just that simple. It's all rooted in our collective preferences.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059762969 said:
Is three some researched based theory here, or just personal opinion?
Click to expand...
another whine about the rich.
 
imagep said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, I am with you on all of that, but why do you post your "lean" as "very conservative"? Your going to be called a socialist by the many conservatives on this board who will expect you to "toe the line" of right wing rhetoric.
Click to expand...

well very conservative is called by some "reactionary" and currently the reactionary position is to demand more and more government so he might be accurate in a perverse way
 
Neomalthusian said:
"The disparity of wealth that has been growing over the last 30 years" is not an argument, so whatever you're complaining about is not really a counter-argument.
Click to expand...
Ughh. The previous poster complained the OP was an "opinion piece". I posted "help" that should provide more than enough "argument" to support at least part of the OP.

Neomalthusian said:
Here's where the partisan fools are going wrong.

Step 1) Observe growing wealth gap spanning 30 years.
Step 2) Look to see who became president 30 years ago.
Step 3) Consider whether you identify with the political party to which that president belonged.
Step 4) If not, blame that president. Note: if you do identify with that political party, blame a predecessor or successor instead.
Click to expand...
This is why I avoid the term "Reaganomics" and use "Supply Side Theory" instead. Call it what you will, the period brought the most violent changes in our tax code since the 1920's. And things like income inequality and the debt shot up from the very same period. I'll give you the corolation argument, but corolation is all you have in complex systems.

Neomalthusian said:
Q: Whose sh*t do we buy?
A: The sh*t the top 1% (corporations) produce and distribute to us.


All together now: Consumers (including the middle class) are destroying themselves. No one will pay more for goods and services produced locally and humbly. No one. Because that's irrational. When we all cost-minimize, we reward the companies who also cost-minimize. And the ones who cost minimize best are the ones with the economies of scale. We all buy from the top, we get all their cheap sh*t, and they get all our money. Yes, it really really is just that simple. It's all rooted in our collective preferences.
Click to expand...

And there it is, the other classic argument. The sleight of hand that swaps personal finances with corporate finances and pretends they are the same. I'll give you that trade deficit is not helping us. But you've got some wires crossed with your ideas here. What is good or bad for a business does not explain a growing gap between the top and bottom components in that same business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom