Class warfare is failed recycled politics

[TPS]

You anti Reagan zealots are hilarious.

 

He represents everything you hate... Because what he did worked and he crushed liberal philosophies while doing it.

 

Only a small small segment of the population believes in the crap you peddle.

Speaking of zealots, you are pushing your own beliefs/biases and ignorance on this one. You might want to check your 6th grade history book to see who was president in 1980...

[whateverdude]

yes, that's something to aspire to. you would expect mankind to have learned something in all that time.

News flash this is why our system is so wonderful. We do not have a caste or nobility system thats prevents people from bettering their lives. You are born with the rights and liberty unencumbered by a government, caste or nobility system to create opportunities to enrich yourself if you choose to whatever degree you choose

 

You guys who bash our system should get out and visit countries or talk to people who were or are held down by castes, non-noble birth, and cultural traditions. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD YOU HAVE IT!

[birdog1960]

News flash this is why our system is so wonderful. We do not have a caste or nobility system thats prevents people from bettering their lives. You are born with the rights and liberty unencumbered by a government, caste or nobility system to create opportunities to enrich yourself if you choose to whatever degree you choose

 

You guys who bash our system should get out and visit countries or talk to people who were or are held down by castes, non-noble birth, and cultural traditions. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD YOU HAVE IT!

the concern is that we are regressing and forming an elite caste of untouchables. the point is that we DO know how good we have it and don't want it destroyed in an attempt quench the insatiable thirst of those very elites.

[Magox]

Speaking of zealots, you are pushing your own beliefs/biases and ignorance on this one. You might want to check your 6th grade history book to see who was president in 1980...

Keep peddling drummer boy

[whateverdude]

the concern is that we are regressing and forming an elite caste of untouchables. the point is that we DO know how good we have it and don't want it destroyed in an attempt quench the insatiable thirst of those very elites.

I agree with you that there is a problem but I'm totally opposite from you on whats causing it. I believe that it's not rich people or banks or wall street that is causing the problem but is the entitlement mindset that is. No one wants to work for it.."just give it to me and give it to me now." "think you're better then me because you're rich, well you just took your money from people like me and now there's not enough to go around you pig."

Edited December 9, 2010 by whateverdude

[Gary M]

the concern is that we are regressing and forming an elite caste of untouchables. the point is that we DO know how good we have it and don't want it destroyed in an attempt quench the insatiable thirst of those very elitesthat feel entitled to others money.

 

 

FIXED

[birdog1960]

FIXED

these are not exclusive problems. it's not either/or. in my opinion it's both. and entitlement mentality and the willingness to live on meager means is exacerbated by hopelessness and minimum wage jobs that pay far below a living wage. in many cases, these wages benefit the elite class i'm disparaging at the expense of those that you are.

[Rob's House]

I spent years wallowing away in a very blue collar postion as a Chef. Making typically under $50k per year and working my ass off. My wife and I spent many weekends taking walks in the upscale neighborhoods near where we lived. Looking at multi-million dollar homes with an expensive car out front and a more expensive boat out back. I didn't use this as a woe is me tactic but a way to motivate me to figure out how I could joint them. Ten year ago I made a major change in my life/career. While I'm not yet to the point of a multi-million dollar home with a boat I will get there. When I ask my wife now where she wants to retire (wine country, the Carribean, big place in Palm Springs) we're not fantasizing we'll actually be able to make it happen. If I can do it anyone can.

We need more of this in our collective mindset. Too many people wait around for their lives to magically work out the way they hoped and then complain when it doesn't work. You get one chance. You can grab the world by the balls and make your life what you want it to be, or you can whine about how it's someone else's fault it didn't work out. Like Brian Tracy says, you are 100% responsible for yourself, and assuming that responsibility is the key factor that separates the mature and successful from the losers.

[Dante]

I spent years wallowing away in a very blue collar postion as a Chef. Making typically under $50k per year and working my ass off. My wife and I spent many weekends taking walks in the upscale neighborhoods near where we lived. Looking at multi-million dollar homes with an expensive car out front and a more expensive boat out back. I didn't use this as a woe is me tactic but a way to motivate me to figure out how I could joint them. Ten year ago I made a major change in my life/career. While I'm not yet to the point of a multi-million dollar home with a boat I will get there. When I ask my wife now where she wants to retire (wine country, the Carribean, big place in Palm Springs) we're not fantasizing we'll actually be able to make it happen. If I can do it anyone can.

Wow. You aren't one of Obama's flock I guess. Makes me think of this quote below that I stole from someones sig on this board.

 

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." ~Winston Churchill

Edited December 9, 2010 by Dante

[....lybob]

 

start at 2 mins

[whateverdude]

these are not exclusive problems. it's not either/or. in my opinion it's both. and entitlement mentality and the willingness to live on meager means is exacerbated by hopelessness and minimum wage jobs that pay far below a living wage. in many cases, these wages benefit the elite class i'm disparaging at the expense of those that you are.

In this country if you want it bad enough there is probably over a million ways to become a millionaire. I’m not going to say it’s easy and I’m not going to say it’s hard. It takes energy, vision, perseverance, determinism and motivation. But, the most important component to becoming a millionaire is sacrifice. You have to sacrifice your mind, body, soul, family, friends and comforts.

 

I have seen firsthand the making of a millionaire going from eating cottage cheese and string beans because that’s what was on sale to eating steak and lobster. I have seen what was given up and what was lost in the process for this and to my way of thinking it’s not worth it. I’m happy with the simple things in life and whenever my income rises I don’t gain in the things that are important to me, all I gain are more things around me and more things to distract me.

[TPS]

Keep peddling drummer boy

The policy changes that have supported a redistribution toward the top have been made under both parties, as money knows no political bounds. It's not a coincidence that the distribution of income was pretty stable for almost 40 years after WW2, and inequlaity has continually increased since about 1980. I picked that year for a reason, but not for why you think. It's obviously too complicated for your biased, narrow-minded views.

 

As for your response, I've come to expect it when you realize you are wrong.

Edited December 9, 2010 by TPS

[IDBillzFan]

In this country if you want it bad enough there is probably over a million ways to become a millionaire.

And just to be clear, when you say "millionaire," are you referring those people who actually earn millions of dollars a year, or are you using the progressives' definition of millionaire which is "any individual earning over $200,000 a year?"

[finknottle]

hmmm...freudian slip? i was using the estate tax example to show how truly small the pool of elites really is. no argument that the number of wannabes with little to no realistic chance is enormous.(that's the basis of the american dream..er, myth)

 

I'll spoil the party by introducing some facts for consideration.

 

The Dept of Treasury measures income mobility every ten years, most recently 1996-2005, by tracking income tax returns. The sample size here was 96,700. They used three measurement criteria, which all produced essentially the same results. The most recent study found that the median income change was +24% after inflation, with two thirds of all households showing a real increase. (The median inflation-adjusted income of the lower groups rose faster than the higher groups, and the median inome of the highest earners actually fell over the period.)

 

More than 55% of households moved to a different income quintile, most moving up. The composition of the top changed most dramatically, with only 40% of the top 1% remaining there, and 25% of the to 1/100 of a percent remaining. Income mobility is essentially unchanged from 86-95.

 

Here is a usefull chart. The column is income quintile of households in 1996. Each row shows the distribution of those filers in 2005. The three rightmost colums elaborate on each row, showing what percentage of that income group would up in the listed percentile (ie 5% means top 5%, not 5-2%).

 

xx-xx 00-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-00 Tot 10% 5% 1%

00-19 42.4 28.6 13.9 9.0 5.3 100 2.3 1.3 0.2

20-39 17.0 33.6 26.7 15.1 7.9 100 3.0 1.2 0.1

40-59 7.1 17.5 33.6 29.6 12.5 100 4.2 1.4 0.3

60-79 4.1 7.3 18.3 40.2 30.2 100 8.6 2.7 0.3

80-00 2.6 3.2 7.1 17.8 69.4 100 43.4 22.5 4.4

10% 2.6 2.2 4.9 11.8 78.6 100 61.1 37.6 8.3

5% 2.6 1.8 3.9 8.6 83.1 100 71.6 54.4 15.2

1% 3.2 1.3 2.2 4.9 88.4 100 82.7 75.0 42.5

 

So what does this show? Churn, generally upwards, against a backdrop of overall rising incomes. And those at the very top tend not to stay there over time. One in 8 average-income filers in 1996 (median $31,875 in '85) were in the top quintile by 2005, and 1 in 300 had joined the top 1% (>$464k inome in '05). One in 500 of the lowest earners in '85 (<$15k) managed to do it!

 

I would call this a more than realistic chance.

Edited December 9, 2010 by finknottle

[Gary M]

I'll spoil the party by introducing some facts for consideration.

 

The Dept of Treasury measures income mobility every ten years, most recently 1996-2005, by tracking income tax returns. The sample size here was 96,700. They used three measurement criteria, which all produced essentially the same results. The most recent study found that the median income change was +24% after inflation, with two thirds of all households showing a real increase. (The median inflation-adjusted income of the lower groups rose faster than the higher groups, and the median inome of the highest earners actually fell over the period.)

 

More than 55% of households moved to a different income quintile, most moving up. The composition of the top changed most dramatically, with only 40% of the top 1% remaining there, and 25% of the to 1/100 of a percent remaining. Income mobility is essentially unchanged from 86-95.

 

Here is a usefull chart. The column is income quintile of households in 1996. Each row shows the distribution of those filers in 2005. The three rightmost colums elaborate on each row, showing what percentage of that income group would up in the listed percentile (ie 5% means top 5%, not 5-2%).

 

xx-xx 00-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-00 Tot 10% 5% 1%

00-19 42.4 28.6 13.9 9.0 5.3 100 2.3 1.3 0.2

20-39 17.0 33.6 26.7 15.1 7.9 100 3.0 1.2 0.1

40-59 7.1 17.5 33.6 29.6 12.5 100 4.2 1.4 0.3

60-79 4.1 7.3 18.3 40.2 30.2 100 8.6 2.7 0.3

80-00 2.6 3.2 7.1 17.8 69.4 100 43.4 22.5 4.4

10% 2.6 2.2 4.9 11.8 78.6 100 61.1 37.6 8.3

5% 2.6 1.8 3.9 8.6 83.1 100 71.6 54.4 15.2

1% 3.2 1.3 2.2 4.9 88.4 100 82.7 75.0 42.5

 

So what does this show? Churn, generally upwards, against a backdrop of overall rising incomes. And those at the very top tend not to stay there over time. One in 8 average-income filers in 1996 (median $31,875 in '85) were in the top quintile by 2005, and 1 in 300 had joined the top 1% (>$464k inome in '05). One in 500 of the lowest earners in '85 (<$15k) managed to do it!

 

I would call this a more than realistic chance.

 

Stop it, you can not use facts to argue with emotion.

[whateverdude]

And just to be clear, when you say "millionaire," are you referring those people who actually earn millions of dollars a year, or are you using the progressives' definition of millionaire which is "any individual earning over $200,000 a year?"

LoL. It's $250.000

[birdog1960]

I'll spoil the party by introducing some facts for consideration.

 

The Dept of Treasury measures income mobility every ten years, most recently 1996-2005, by tracking income tax returns. The sample size here was 96,700. They used three measurement criteria, which all produced essentially the same results. The most recent study found that the median income change was +24% after inflation, with two thirds of all households showing a real increase. (The median inflation-adjusted income of the lower groups rose faster than the higher groups, and the median inome of the highest earners actually fell over the period.)

 

More than 55% of households moved to a different income quintile, most moving up. The composition of the top changed most dramatically, with only 40% of the top 1% remaining there, and 25% of the to 1/100 of a percent remaining. Income mobility is essentially unchanged from 86-95.

 

Here is a usefull chart. The column is income quintile of households in 1996. Each row shows the distribution of those filers in 2005. The three rightmost colums elaborate on each row, showing what percentage of that income group would up in the listed percentile (ie 5% means top 5%, not 5-2%).

 

xx-xx 00-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-00 Tot 10% 5% 1%

00-19 42.4 28.6 13.9 9.0 5.3 100 2.3 1.3 0.2

20-39 17.0 33.6 26.7 15.1 7.9 100 3.0 1.2 0.1

40-59 7.1 17.5 33.6 29.6 12.5 100 4.2 1.4 0.3

60-79 4.1 7.3 18.3 40.2 30.2 100 8.6 2.7 0.3

80-00 2.6 3.2 7.1 17.8 69.4 100 43.4 22.5 4.4

10% 2.6 2.2 4.9 11.8 78.6 100 61.1 37.6 8.3

5% 2.6 1.8 3.9 8.6 83.1 100 71.6 54.4 15.2

1% 3.2 1.3 2.2 4.9 88.4 100 82.7 75.0 42.5

 

So what does this show? Churn, generally upwards, against a backdrop of overall rising incomes. And those at the very top tend not to stay there over time. One in 8 average-income filers in 1996 (median $31,875 in '85) were in the top quintile by 2005, and 1 in 300 had joined the top 1% (>$464k inome in '05). One in 500 of the lowest earners in '85 (<$15k) managed to do it!

 

I would call this a more than realistic chance.

ah, but a closer analysis of cbo numbers reveals methodology flaws that propagates the myth that so many desperately cling to krugman this came almost immediately up on a cursory search but i'm fairly certain more recent analyses are available. i'll post when i get a chance. this is a long standing and contentious debate that will not be settled here...but what does a nobel winning economist know?

[IDBillzFan]

LoL. It's $250.000

Actually, $250,000 refers to millionaire couples. Single millionaires are at the $200,000/year mark. Cuz that's how millionaires roll, I guess.

Edited December 9, 2010 by LABillzFan

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

For that matter all politics are recycled. There is nothing new under the sun. Corps bad, rich people bad, wall street bad, bankers bad. If you believe this than you are being played. Interesting link on recycled politics carter vs. mondale vs. obama

You are a totally brainwashed tool. You are told what to think and then you repeat what you are told to say.

[birdog1960]

some facts about us upward mobility