PDA

View Full Version : Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the little guy



Aristotle
09-05-2014, 10:14 AM
Under President Obama, the richest 10 percent were the only income group of Americans to see their median incomes rise, according to a survey released this week by the Federal Reserve.

The Fed data covered the years 2010-2013, during which period Mr. Obama constantly campaigned against income inequality and won re-election by painting his Republican rival as a tool of Wall Street plutocrats.

“Data from the 2013 [Survey of Consumer Finances] confirm that the shares of income and wealth held by affluent families are at modern historically high levels,” the report said in noting that the median income fell for every 10-percent grouping except the most affluent 10 percent.

"I still like Obama" - Left Sock



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/incomes-fell-most-families-past-three-years-while-/#ixzz3CS02QiCE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 10:39 AM
The survey also found that family in the middle income bracket (40th to 90th percentiles) saw “very little” change in average real incomes and still have not recovered losses from 2010 and 2007. Families at the bottom of the income distribution continued to see “substantial declines” in average real incomes, a continuing trend from the previous two surveys.
America in decline.

Aristotle
09-05-2014, 10:49 AM
America in decline.

It's all relative, an America in "decline" is still the most prosperous and advanced nation on earth.

Yes, that's how me we rock!!

Aristotle
09-05-2014, 10:51 AM
meanwhile, in Tolerance-Compassion Land:

While politicians in Ottawa still can't decide who is in the middle class, a new analysis suggests wealth is increasingly gravitating to the very top.

The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that the country's 86 richest individuals and families -- or 0.002 per cent of the total population -- are getting exponentially richer and now have accumulated as much wealth as the country's poorest 11.4 million.


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-richest-86-have-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-11-million-1.1758778#ixzz3CS9DVvpD

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 11:15 AM
Read more:

"After-tax disposable income has increased by 10 per cent across all income brackets," noted Employment Minister Jason Kenney at the time.So we're all doing better. A sharp contrast to “substantial declines” in average real incomes

Aristotle
09-05-2014, 11:20 AM
So we're all doing better. A sharp contrast to “substantial declines” in average real incomes

But you're not doing better, because our GDP is higher than yours.

An American in decline economically is still better off than his Canadian neighbor.

GDP per capita

Canada: $43,100

USA: $52,800

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

We win!!! :) :) :)

Aristotle
09-05-2014, 11:30 AM
Throw in the fact the cost of living is higher in Canada overall than in the US, and we win by a TKO!!!

http://www.15rounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bayanjargal.jpg

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 11:40 AM
Now, just factor in the total federal debt owed by each and every American, then contrast that with the total debt owed by Canadians, and you have yourself a grand slam!

Oh, wait......

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 11:43 AM
But you're not doing better, because our GDP is higher than yours. Um, what? Even though Canadians across all income brackets see an increase in disposable income they are actually doing worse than before? And this relates to GDP in the US how?

And you're an educator, lol. https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlzERPuNJv1zBLrEFX37_mIiICtjjwL kYmDqsRVwhH0K2KwuOVbQKiwks

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 11:57 AM
How is this even possible, anyway? Obama and his socialists have been in charge for six years! - how in the hell did the rich prosper?

And besides, taking 10% of a population to higher wealth is a far cry better than Georgie and his 1%'ers

And how did the stock markets get to record highs under the Democrats?

There are many mysteries in America, and many illusions to be burst.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 12:08 PM
Those darm 1 percenters. People like LeBron James, Tiger Woods, Oprah, Michael Moore, Steven Spielberg and the like.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 12:16 PM
I don't know how anyone could begrudge the Spielberg his spending dough. That's the dude who bankrolled E.T.!

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 12:44 PM
What Obama has accomplished with the economy is nothing short of startling, when you consider that Bush triggered the highest jump in unemployment since the end of World War 2:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 12:49 PM
meanwhile, in Tolerance-Compassion Land:

While politicians in Ottawa still can't decide who is in the middle class, a new analysis suggests wealth is increasingly gravitating to the very top.

The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that the country's 86 richest individuals and families -- or 0.002 per cent of the total population -- are getting exponentially richer and now have accumulated as much wealth as the country's poorest 11.4 million.


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-richest-86-have-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-11-million-1.1758778#ixzz3CS9DVvpD

You're comparing apples to oranges here, Federally Canada is run by the right, so it really is no surprise that the "not rich" are still getting pummeled. Unfortunately I cannot speak for the left run America since I know little about how the American political system works.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 12:58 PM
the "not rich" are still getting pummeled.How are the "not rich" getting pummeled when disposable income is increasing?

The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting richer. It's almost as if the only thing that would make some happy would be to see the rich become poor.

I really don't understand the line of reasoning that equates the success of the rich with others being pummeled regardless of what's happening with the "not rich".

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 01:49 PM
The poor still do not have a livable income, I suppose it depends on what is defined as "disposable income"
The middle class are still not getting cost of living increases, social services are still under funded.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 01:53 PM
I guess it depends on how you define livable.

I see where you're coming from but I don't think the way to pull up the poor is by pulling down the rich. The amount of wealth to be had isn't a finite number and dragging down the guys at the top of the ladder is unlikely to result in pulling up the guys at the bottom.

Bill Nash
09-05-2014, 02:04 PM
I don't know how anyone could begrudge the Spielberg his spending dough. That's the dude who bankrolled E.T.!
Didn't George Lucas bankroll ET, ...

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 02:09 PM
Frayed knot!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/?ref_=nv_sr_1

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 03:13 PM
I guess it depends on how you define livable.

I see where you're coming from but I don't think the way to pull up the poor is by pulling down the rich. The amount of wealth to be had isn't a finite number and dragging down the guys at the top of the ladder is unlikely to result in pulling up the guys at the bottom.

At one point I would have been inclined to disagree on some level, however, with more understanding of economics (as slight as it might be) I am currently more inclined to agree. One thing has not changed though, I still don't have a clue as to what should be done about this... Fortunately I am not the one that gets paid the big bucks to figure it out.

Aristotle
09-05-2014, 04:45 PM
Now, just factor in the total federal debt owed by each and every American, then contrast that with the total debt owed by Canadians, and you have yourself a grand slam!

Oh, wait......

Strike one! :) :) :)

Aristotle
09-05-2014, 04:48 PM
Um, what? Even though Canadians across all income brackets see an increase in disposable income they are actually doing worse than before? And this relates to GDP in the US how?



I've wondered for a long time now if Economics is merely an elective course in Canada.

I am going to assume your comment was meant for humor. If I don't, then the wondering stops, and confirmation ensues.

official soonet pu$$ycat
09-05-2014, 04:54 PM
Didn't George Lucas bankroll ET, ...

Like many of their movies it was a joint venture.

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 04:59 PM
I've wondered for a long time now if Economics is merely an elective course in Canada.

I am going to assume your comment was meant for humor. If I don't, then the wondering stops, and confirmation ensues.

I've been telling you for a long time it is...
Hence why I don't understand economics that well...

Aristotle
09-05-2014, 05:01 PM
I've been telling you for a long time it is...
Hence why I don't understand economics that well...

I know, but I thought you were just joking around.

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 06:02 PM
I know, but I thought you were just joking around.

You think that was a joke, you should see what passed for "history" class....

official soonet pu$$ycat
09-05-2014, 06:18 PM
You think that was a joke, you should see what passed for "history" class....

Our school was poor so they had to combine home-ec, sex ed and geography. To this day I can't eat any more English muffins.

Aristotle
09-06-2014, 10:28 AM
Our school was poor so they had to combine home-ec, sex ed and geography. To this day I can't eat any more English muffins.

http://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/ed-mcmahon-jpg.40837/