Printable View
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.