It's the 2nd percent being jealous of their 1st percent neighbors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Except your own link proved you wrong. Pretty damn conclusively.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Printable View
It's the 2nd percent being jealous of their 1st percent neighbors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Except your own link proved you wrong. Pretty damn conclusively.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Sweet mother of holy fucking shit. Irony overload, please bear with me while I reboot my brain. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yeah, like Loki said, you disproved your own assertion pretty well for me, so I didn't need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Not that I would anyway, since I'm not in the habit of throwing pearls before swine, which is why I'm generally not going to bother digging up actual facts for you when you have an unblemished track record of ignoring them completely, or at best, twisting them in astoundingly absurd ways.
Only if you think the movement is about wealth envy, instead of protesting minority wealth's outsized [b]power[/i] in politics and business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Only if you use my link to the CBO's [several page analysis] to one damn graph, and selectively decide to ignore/forget my other links from other sources, in other threads. Sure, income "grew" for all quintiles, even the lowest and poorest moved "up" a little bit.Quote:
Except your own link proved you wrong. Pretty damn conclusively.
Take a look at the CBO analysis of gov't transfers vs tax structures. It's not specifically mentioned in their report, but Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (which were regressive and benefited the top tier) aren't put into relative / contextual terms, other than some vague pronouncement that "tax schemes became less progressive after 1979. Indeed, Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's and Clinton's tax cuts in the 90's are in there, along with trade agreements or other policy changes during that time---like NAFTA, or de-regulating the financial industry.
But the CBO is [supposedly] non-partisan and can't make any political statement. Just the facts. When their analysis is that income disparity has grown massively over the last three decades, it shouldn't matter if you're Democrat or Republican reading their report. This isn't a left or right wing agenda...it's more of an up or down perspective.
You're right, minorities do have disproportionate power in politics. We should ban the NCAAP to help correct that injustice. :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Actually, it's more of a "failure to understand elementary school level math" perspective... in addition to you moving the goal posts again.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The facts I've posted only get yer goat when you don't agree with them. You use me as your whipping post only because you don't like the links and citations I've made, and you can't yell at those journalists or legislators. Much easier to yell at me. Here on this forum, oh yeah you get a hard-on by using your bullshit and contentious attitude, with flowery language. But your bullshit abilities only go so far, ya know.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
If you think the Middle Class(es) are doing just fine, as a national whole, then maybe you've been living in your suburban Columbus, Ohio enclave just a little too long. Could you take your attitude to Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati? Have you taken a good look at the state of Ohio, or its general state of affairs? Compared its COL or standard/quality of life with your neighbor states?
Nah, you wouldn't do something like that. Too Nationalistic, too Federal related, too SSSocialistic, or too Humanistic. Too United States of America, I guess.
You've never posted facts. Spin from someone pushing an agenda, not factual. This is like that "expert" thing all over again, where you keep insist some random inbred hick is an "expert" because he got quoted in some news article. Again, newspaper editorials are not the same thing as facts. Please, some some facts if you're going to claim you do that.
You can start by supporting your earlier claims with factual evidence: claims like the middle class shrinking, lower and middle class wages stagnating and whatever the other one was... something about j00s stealing the Common Man's gold, I believe. Cite facts, actual facts, to support those claims you made. And just to be extra clear, a journalist making vague assertions about perceptions and so on: not a fact.
And, since I have to work in a few hours to make my money, you'll have plenty of time to provide those facts about you and your poor, downtrodden OWS brethren, who apparently are so hard pressed for money they can sit around on the street all day "protesting" instead of getting a fucking job. :mad:
(And, just as a P.S., if you could stop being a presumptuous ass while you're at it, that'd be fantastic. I'm much, much more well-traveled than you, both inside North America and out of it, so if anyone here needs to poke their head out of the suburban rut they've been in for the past couple of decades, it'd be the person in the conversation that's been in the same suburban rut long enough to raise children to adulthood, not the person who needs an extra page to fill in the part of the form that asks for all places of residence in the last 7 years. :bored:)
I've always linked facts to support my views and opinions. Sorry if pages of posts and threads with links is too much for you to follow, or too hard to contend. In your mind everything appears to be a "fight" of sorts. Your approach is always in fight mode. There is no reason for your attitude, which is just that...an attitude. You're contentious without cause and arrogant without proof. Throwing wild punches and hoping to stay in the ring. That's the ubiquitous gambler profile, intent on defending the gamble for its own sake...to hell with any monetary loss involved...and fuck any people as innocent bystanders.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
:donkey:
http://news.yahoo.com/kitchen-volunt...215348689.html
An OWS person rapes one woman and assaults another. Not entirely surprising considering the number of people involved. But how do the OWS people respond? Report him to the police? Hold him to make sure he doesn't flee? No, they tell him to leave. :bored:
Wait, you want people to forcibly restrain a person (who was not in fact trying to flee but rather coming back to the kitchen over and over again :D :D) based on an allegation of rape several days ago? That's ridiculous. He was reported and was in fact picked up by the police.
"hey dawg i hurd this dawg rape sum1" can only get a man so far
Another one? There seems to be a lot of these happening. I wouldn't really hold all the rapes and sexual abuses against the group as a whole, but I find the OWS attempts to cover these up and pressure the victims into silence more disturbing, and the blame for that does fall on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I do like the comment made by someone on the yahoo story, "Imagine if this happened at a Tea party event."
Of course that would fit in nicely with the media narrative that the Tea Party crowd is a bunch of racist, sexist bigots....
*facepalm* because the media isn't enjoying discrediting OWS right? :noob:
I don't know about the media, but when I read Lewk's post I mostly thought of OG and Nessus. Well, and you as well, to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm not surprised, it's easily explained by the Hostile Poster Effect :noob:
What? Bro, the Tea Party is just swell. Many of 'em like Michele! Take back America 2012 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Right, and I've always been a pregnant Chinese lesbian.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Now that we've settled that, care to link to facts to support the particular assertions you've been making here? (Shrinking middle-class and decreasing income/wages for the 99%, since you've probably forgotten already.)
Feel free, and even encouraged, in point of fact, to not read or respond to any of my posts until the hallucinations stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The data and statistics are there, from CBO to US Census. We all know how collecting and grouping numbers can be done in different ways---per capita or per household, two to three year income average or by decade, with or without consumer prices/expenditures, percent of GDP growth or income ratio comparisons, etc. Not to mention those pesky surveys or polls asking subjective questions like "Are you better off now than four years ago?" or comparing generational lifestyle or economic mobility.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
The analyses and conclusions are what you disagree with, but you have yet to provide anything to explain why you disagree. It's curious how all the (global) discussions of labor and income inequalities/stagnation lead you to a different conclusion.
:bored:Quote:
Feel free, and even encouraged, in point of fact, to not read or respond to any of my posts until the hallucinations stop.
So where are these data and statistics? :bored: You know, an actual link; one that doesn't go counter to your claims this time.
Maybe they're like the j00s. Everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Only explanation I can come up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Just read an NY Times piece that complained about inequality: it made the point that while the income of the rich went up ~250% over the last 2 decades, the median income has gone up 40%. That's a +40%.
You expect me to keep track of articles I've posted, so I can post them again, because you don't read them the first time? Surely you recall them when Tear, Being and Choobs were part of the debates. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The CBO results are back a page or two (wealth distribution, income inequality and regressive tax effects). I already posted the Berkeley study (middle income wage "stagnation" from 1979 to 2007). Other articles about the 'middles class' shrinking came from Bloomberg, NYT, WSJ, Market Watch, Huffington Post, CNN Money---all citing research and studies done by US Census, NBER, CBO and even the Federal Reserve. Some might be buried in other threads (Jobs, Youth Unemployment, College costs), or in discussions of COL and consumer debt, or debt-to-income ratios that effect 'the middle quintiles'.
<edit One series specific to the shrinking middle class was an economist panel discussion at NYT from the summer.>
Here's one from today by Brookings and their Hamilton Project, drawing similar conclusions as the Southern Poverty Law Project:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...ne_looney.aspx
The CBO results didn't support your point. :bored: Are you really that dense?
The Brookings piece talks about what's been happening since 2008. Do you not read your own links?
And...what? One article proves a point now? :bored: Empirical data is one thing, comparing it to real people and real effects is another. Does that +40% compare the costs that hit the middle hardest---like health and education costs---that grew over 300% in inflation-adjusted dollars? Does that include their savings rate, value of retirement packages, or credit debt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There's a difference between income as raw numbers, and how that income sustains a person or family. I already posted the link (from CBO?) showing median income went below $50,000 for the first time in decades, and other things relating productivity and hours worked. Much of the "growth" income for labor has come from working more hours, not from higher wages. And while something like 40% of all workers are "invested in the market" by their 401-K, their share of capital growth is smaller than those making money from money.
Look, if you think the middle isn't shrinking or struggling in relative terms (all developed nations, not just the US), then explain why government leaders, business leaders, and millions of workers (and voters) are complaining about slow growth, high unemployment, wages not keeping up with COL, and worries about retirement. They're all making a mountain out of a molehill, nothing to see here folks, move along?
CBO's report proved the point about growing income inequality, disparate rates and shares of income growth, tax rates that became more regressive over time, all that favored top quintiles disproportionately. And all those things are part of this OWS thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I've made my point, and given links with data and analysis. Maybe they're from left-leaning think tanks, or news sites that are left of center. Okay, that's probably true to an extent. But now it's someone else's turn to prove how their assessment is wrong, or why some right-leaning think tanks or news sites are more right.
If the middle classes/middle quintile/median income folks are doin' just grand....what's the basis for that view? (We already exhausted tech affordability as a good measure for the health of a consumer middle class, since you can't eat an iPad)
Are you ever going to post a link showing that the middle class has seen its income decline over the last few decades?
Coincidentally, I do enjoy the irony of you suddenly clinging to data and reports of think tanks.
That would be redundant. :bored: I don't keep a database of articles I've read and posted here. I don't even keep a running history on my personal computer. Of course, you have the same access to web searches, so don't expect me to do your work for you. Most of the things I post are links originally found at RealClearMarkets, Bloomberg, NYT, WSJ, Forbes, CNN, Fortune, or msnbc/cnbc. You can do it, too. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news...lass/index.htm
What's that supposed to mean? It's neither sudden nor ironic. I read things from right-leaning think tanks like Cato or Heritage Foundation, and have linked their analyses and opinions before, particularly regarding healthcare. I used to work with folks from the Heritage Foundation in Indpls. in the mid-80's.Quote:
Coincidentally, I do enjoy the irony of you suddenly clinging to data and reports of think tanks.
But what's that got to do with your glaringly absent counter-point about the state of the US middle class?
:coffee:
That graph shows median income growing throughout the entire time period plotted. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I guess you already forgot your rants about evil experts and useless data.Quote:
What's that supposed to mean? It's neither sudden nor ironic. I read things from right-leaning think tanks like Cato or Heritage Foundation, and have linked their analyses and opinions before, particularly regarding healthcare. I used to work with folks from the Heritage Foundation in Indpls. in the mid-80's.
But what's that got to do with your glaringly absent counter-point about the state of the US middle class?
:coffee:
A graph that's basically flat from 1917 to 2008 for median income, when adjusted for inflation or COL? No, you try again. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're confusing my rants about experts with an agenda, and using fuzzy math/accounting to further that agenda.Quote:
I guess you already forgot your rants about evil experts and useless data.
What's this, my third or fourth request for you (or Cain, or anyone else) to support your opinion that the US middle class is doing just fine? I've lost track how many times I've asked for your counter-persuasive argument.
Using the same data and statistics (as anyone who came to the conclusion that the US middle class is shrinking and/or struggling, including "Academic Economic Experts")....looks like you've got some work to do. That means more than your lame tactic of keeping me on the defensive. That can't be your entire line of reasoning, now can it? Surely not. :donkey:
But at least she's not clinging to the actual data or reports, but rather some delusional distortions about j00spiracies involving the world's aspirin supply and what not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Really, what was so objectionable about ending this bullshit with a concise declaration of "j00s" and moving on, again? Because I really think that's a solution we should revisit regarding GeeGee's recent renewed delirium. :bored:
If you're comfortable with that as the basis for your opinions, no one's stopping you. Just don't expect many on this forum to take you seriously if that's all you can muster. I mean, really, how stupid is that---to ridicule millions of people's POV simply because it aligns with mine? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Plus, you have a very strange fetish about Jews and conspiracy theories for any/every thing that involves money or income. Looks like that's your pat answer for any economic debate or discussion. If you don't have anything to explain your own opinion, just call your opposition names, or invoke Jews and conspiracies.
Does this "work" for you in real life? Because it's not "working" for you in forum life. :donkey:
So now there are millions of people who think you actually post factual data to support your assorted insanities? OK, then.
What, are the j00s secretly hording weblinks now too, which is why you can't provide them and the rest of us can't see them? Maybe that's why the j00-aspirin costs $50 a pill, because that's where the j00s are hiding all the weblinks you can't provide us with. :downcast:
Yet you say I'm the one dropping acid or being delusional. Wow. No wonder we can't get new members to sign up or post, huh. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Whether it's by thousands or millions, the OWS movement has higher approval ratings than congress. Ya know, congress---as in US house or senate legislators, the same damn group of people you love to criticize, because they represent teh federal gummint that you love to hate.
BTW, the factual data I've linked can by analyzed by anyone, obviously leading to different or opposing conclusions. I'm STILL waiting for you or Loki to do that. Until then, baiting or trolling me doesn't do a damn thing to support your opinion on the health or growth of the US middle class.
Because of you? Sure, I can believe that. You're the one telling new members to fuck off when they don't buy into your insanity fast enough, and you're the one who's never taken a noticeably long absence from here. On the other hand, if the problem was the guy who doesn't tell new members to fuck off, but occasionally disappears for 9 months at a go, you might expect new membership to rise during those absences. But, since it hasn't, we can only conclude that logic is part of the j00s evil plan to... something.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Not that you're one to let facts get in the way of scapegoating others for... everything, but there ya have it... maybe the problem isn't everyone else, maybe it's you.
Such masterful manipulations! Model passive-agressive score-keeping! If our forum had an Academy Award for that, you'd be a shoe-in. I especially appreciate your inference that I spend too much time here by choice, instead of being BANNED multiple times, or that your "long absence(s)" by being BANNED somehow means you're more special. Or more credible, or something. Nice spin there. Award worthy, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Why don't you start a thread along those lines, since you don't seem to care much about topical debate or discussion? If all you can do here is reply "j00", or variations of "j00", or "j00 conspiracies" for anything involving money....maybe you need your own damn thread? And your own damn award?
OK then. Don't know why I had any illusions that you'd somehow catch the point of that last post... or that it would have any resemblance whatsoever to reality once you were done parsing it.
Anyway, sorry for derailing your railing against the j00s and whatnot. Please, return to what you were doing... which was telling us how all those graph lines that slope up actually point down, I believe.