|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|11-19-2011 03:49 PM|
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
You say the rich got richer, so did the poor and middle class. Guess how? Subprime mortgage bubble. So Clinton shouldn't get a ton of credit for that. How wealthy were they after their housing collapsed. Not too much. Those were definitely good times. Don't get me wrong. But the wealth was very illusory.
As you said earlier, Clinton did indeed resemble a Republican because of his deregulation that he championed. But if you dig deeper, he had a very liberal/democrat motive. The deregulation furthered his goal in pushing subprime housing. He did very Republican things because it furthered his very Democrat goal. He removed capital requirements from Fannie and Freddie, specifically exempted derivatives (Credit Default Swaps particularly) from the definition of Security to escape regulation by the SEC. These helped Fannie and Freddie buy up these subprime mortgages.
Jimmy Carter by all accounts was a nice, genuine guy, with superior intelligence. Unfortunately he couldn't handle the crisis given to him. Imagine a time with almost double digit unemployment and double digit inflation with a misery index over 20. Those were the 70's. It was pretty nasty.
Times were simpler than Snowolf, I take your word for it! I was still a young pup. But I can't imagine it was that great. I mean, just watching Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech and the crisis of confidence tells me things were not good then. The energy crisis with rationing created a lot of unease. I'm sure parents hid it well from their children, as all good parents do. And as Americans do we toughed it out.
That's why in the end, even though I vote mostly Republican - Occasionally Democrat (Clinton, Kerry in 2004)I dont' care much who's in office as long as there is split govt. 2008-2010 was flat out terrible with Obama in the White House and both houses controlled by Democrats. Thats too much unfettered power. George Bush in the early 2000's when they controlled Congress too. Too much power.
I want a split govt, with one party controlling at least one head of the 3 headed beast. There are good times and bad times, under both Republicans and Democrats. We had the 70's under Carter. Terrible time. 80's through 90's with both Republicans and Democrats. Shit happens. I dont' think the R or D after the President's name can control much of that.
|11-19-2011 03:38 PM|
|snowjeeper||I didn't say that all republicans are greedy fuckers, because some are definitely not. The ones that are complete morons probably aren't greedy.|
|11-19-2011 12:05 PM|
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
You were saying?
|11-19-2011 12:02 PM|
|metric||I never understood why almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax, yet they get a "refund" (handout) from O. If you want the rich to pay more in taxes, certainly EVERYONE should pay something in taxes then. I can't stand these losers who own brand new cars, smartphones, big screen tv's yet they claim they are "poor" and pay no taxes.|
|11-18-2011 09:21 PM|
jdang the problem is you are cherry picking numbers and taking them out of context.
Even talks about the 1970s! :P
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair
I'm still looking for a great article with tons of data vis charts, didn't find it though.
|11-18-2011 08:59 PM|
Nice post Snowolf.
I can say the same for the UK in general although I don't remember the 70s because I was a baby.
I grew up in the UK in the 80s.
Whats happened in the last 30 years around the world is that mega corporations and big business has taken over. Its more or less running government and owns the media. The result is average peoples lives are way harder. They have less free time and less spare money and are being squeezed ever tighter.
Its just that mass media and mobile phones and Xboxes are keeping peoples minds so busy with garbage that many people don't realize it. Especially people who have by chance done well financially over this period are in denial. They will dogmatically cling to the illusion that its gotten better for everyone when the truth is things have gone horribly wrong.
Unless you are in the 1% that is fucking over the rest of humanity in which case things have gone according to plan.
|11-18-2011 06:26 PM|
Originally Posted by Extremo View Post
I promise to get to them.
|11-18-2011 06:25 PM|
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
Income inequality isn't desirable, but what if purchase power of the lowest class rose over that same period. The rich got richer, yes, but the poor got richer too.
What was the buying power of the poor when inflation was double digits in the 70's?
The middle class buying power. Ah yes, the shrinking middle class. how many computers, cars, televisions, electronic equipment, did the middle class have back in the 70's. How much was gas per gallon in the 70's. Food prices, adjusted for inflation. What is the evidence the middle class today has less purchasing power than they did pre-Reagan.
More on the shrinking middle class. Ok. Yes these numbers are from 2007, pre crisis. The Crisis is an outlier, so it'll be a few years before we know the lasting effects of it.
Go to page 29. They tally up the total number of households that make money in each category. If you look at the row starting in 1981 you see the percentages of each category. Fast forward to the top 2006. In almost each category, and especially from 25k-75k they all drop. So this reinforces the notion that the middle class shrunk, if you define the middle class as earning $25,000 - $75,000. However, there is a problem. The notion that a shrinking middle class is bad requires us to believe that families dropped out of the middle class and into the lower class, >$25,000.
But if you look at the numbers for those earning less than $25,000 they all drop too. From 30.8% in 1981, to down to 25.2%. Huh? How does that work?
So those making 25k - 75k went from 50.5% in 1981 to 44.3% in 2006. So yes, the middle class shrunk 6.2% of all taxpaying households.
So we should see an increase in the lowest $25,000 but we don't. We see that it shrunk as well, from 30.8% to 25.2%.
That means 5.6% of households who made less than $25,000 moved up a class (defined by the $25,000 barrier) into the middle class. But the middle class also shed households, so 11.8% of households moved up over the $75,000 barrier into the upper class. These are inflation adjusted numbers.
So when Politicians talk about a shrinking middle class they hide the fact that the middle class was shrinking into the upper class.
Other than politically, How is that a bad thing???? Everyone moved up. So politicians are crying about a shrinking lower and middle class. Tell me how that is undesirable? Only in a spread the wealth communist society. Everybody is rich or nobody is rich (which is where it usually ends up in such societies).
In every society there will always be a pyramid. I'd like to see that pyramid smoothed out. Sure. I'm greedy, but I'm not selfish. I want everyone to be successful. Trust me. I love my fellow countrymen. But a pyramid will always exist.
Could we do more? Yes. But we also had a shrinking of lower class as well. They don't tell you about that!!!!! It doesn't fit their narrative.
Again this is pre-2006. We have to watch the next 10 years to see how 2007-now shakes out.
|11-18-2011 06:04 PM|
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
There has been a lot of speculation and flat out inaccuracies thrown out in this thread as well as others re. politics. My favorite is the argument about greed, etc...ever see how many Democrats are billionaires...check it out...Warren Buffet???? Lets get it straight, you aren't involved in politics unless you are an egotistical greedy bastard...Republican or Democrat.
|11-18-2011 05:54 PM|
|snowjeeper||In terms on income equality, in terms of middle class buying power, etc.|
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|