helix400: Yes, since 1994. I'm thinking you didn't read my post or his post, and both covered that.

How is comparing wages to 1994 useful when they started to decline after that date? You're just being disingenuous and ignoring ALL data from the census bureau in favor some random blogger who claims to use the same data.

helix400: What is expected is that when the rate that the rich get richer declines, then the bottom 9 deciles will also see a decline in their rate of growth.

Prove it.

Just joking - I already know you can't, stooge.

SavvyLemur: If you were in that bracket and working 6 months out of the year essentially for free I would think you'd have a different opinion.

Why don't you go to Somalia and let us know how great it is to not have to "work for free" at all during the year?

cousin-merle: Try the census.gov quintile data, Slappy. Or continue ignoring it. It's up to you. Personally, I enjoy reality.

Do you enjoy going around in circles? Because you posted household quintile census data. We both agreed from the beginning that has gone down.

I'm talking bout quintile and decile data per earner. Which you seem to vehemently evade.

P.S. If you don't like my census data, go find your own. Lying right-wing blogs don't count.

sarcastrophe: Then perhaps you can explain why someone making $50k more than me does get a tax cut.

Because the Republicans would have freaked the true Independents out if Obama had said he was going to raise taxes back to reasonable levels- 90% for top tier (prob above $4million, 80% for 3 million, 70% for 2 million, 60% for $500,000, 40% for $250,000, etc... where it would have been possible to give people like you a tax decrease. Obviously this would have to be slightly adjusted over time, and I just made up the numbers off the top of my head- but I'm guessing they'd be reasonable for the budget.

You want to really improve your standard of living- go out and tell all the Republicans to just stop. They are wrong. Taxes must go up on the wealthy, by a lot. Then the middle class can have a break. You want to be part of the middle class and be prosperous? Tax the wealthy realistic amounts.

sloppy shoes: Because the Republicans would have freaked the true Independents out if Obama had said he was going to raise taxes back to reasonable levels- 90% for top tier (prob above $4million, 80% for 3 million, 70% for 2 million, 60% for $500,000, 40% for $250,000, etc... where it would have been possible to give people like you a tax decrease. Obviously this would have to be slightly adjusted over time, and I just made up the numbers off the top of my head- but I'm guessing they'd be reasonable for the budget.

You want to really improve your standard of living- go out and tell all the Republicans to just stop. They are wrong. Taxes must go up on the wealthy, by a lot. Then the middle class can have a break. You want to be part of the middle class and be prosperous? Tax the wealthy realistic amounts.

Signing a marriage document seems easier.

Aexia: SavvyLemur: If you were in that bracket and working 6 months out of the year essentially for free I would think you'd have a different opinion.

Why don't you go to Somalia and let us know how great it is to not have to "work for free" at all during the year?

So I shouldn't care about high tax rates because other countries are worse off than mine?

sarcastrophe: Signing a marriage document seems easier.

Meh. Not for all of us.

But the long term gain for your country would be better. By the way- if we have higher taxes, we better start paying down the debt.

People who get rich in the United States do so because of this countries existing government, laws, legal system, infrastructure and institutions. All of these things helped the wealthy generate the wealth they have in one way or another. These things were paid for or protected by tax dollars. Tax dollars keep them functioning and/or safe. The wealthy have an interest in keeping these things in tip-top shape because they help generate more wealth in addition to protecting their existing wealth. Yes the taxman is taking money out of your pocket, but the truth is he helped put a lot more in. You should be happy to invest a little more in your country because if it ceases to exist so does your wealth.

The same goes for corporations. Anyone who think corporations will drastically lower their prices if their tax liabilities were eliminated is simply naive.

sloppy shoes: But the long term gain for your country would be better. By the way- if we have higher taxes, we better start paying down the debt.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Oh man... i actually laughed. That's some funny shiat right there.

cousin-merle: How is comparing wages to 1994 useful when they started to decline after that date?

Wow? Are you serious? They went down since 1994? Are you really claiming that now?

You're just being disingenuous and ignoring ALL data from the census bureau in favor some random blogger who claims to use the same data.

You can't even seem to get a handle on obtaining correct data to begin with. How can we discuss data when you are confusing household data with earner data, when you think median income can prove the zero sum economic pie concept, and when you can't even read data presented to you that show wages since 1994 have gone up, not down?

sarcastrophe: Oh man... i actually laughed. That's some funny shiat right there.

Why?

helix400: cousin-merle: Try the census.gov quintile data, Slappy. Or continue ignoring it. It's up to you. Personally, I enjoy reality.

Do you enjoy going around in circles? Because you posted household quintile census data. We both agreed from the beginning that has gone down.

I'm talking bout quintile and decile data per earner. Which you seem to vehemently evade.

If you want to believe graphs that some stranger made, that is your prerogative. Everyone else realizes that you're intentionally not looking at the source data because it disagrees with you. Households, individual, it doesn't matter. Do the calculations yourself. You're wrong, and everyone who can click a link in this thread knows it.

sloppy shoes: Why?

If "starving the beast" didn't work for Reagan, what makes you think "feeding the beast" is going to work for anyone?

helix400: You can't even seem to get a handle on obtaining correct data to begin with. How can we discuss data when you are confusing household data with earner data, when you think median income can prove the zero sum economic pie concept, and when you can't even read data presented to you that show wages since 1994 have gone up, not down?

I read the source, you read some lying sycophant. You have already been proven wrong. Sorry.

pwhp_67: EatHam: And you think that it should be higher for people who make more than I do? Holy shiat.


You do know that quite a few of the really really rich opposed the last Bush tax cuts, right? If they don't have a problem with paying more WTF do you care?

No one is stopping Buffet from writing the FED a check.

sloppy shoes: sarcastrophe: Oh man... i actually laughed. That's some funny shiat right there.

Why?

Because in all of recent history, it hasn't ever gone down:
Link (new window)

sarcastrophe: If "starving the beast" didn't work for Reagan, what makes you think "feeding the beast" is going to work for anyone?

I would think that the beast would be hungry after being starved for 30 years. Maybe that's why bridges are falling down and peanuts are poisoning people.

sarcastrophe: If "starving the beast" didn't work for Reagan, what makes you think "feeding the beast" is going to work for anyone?

Or, more directly, politicians generally get re-elected by bringing money (from other states and from borrowing by future taxpayers) to their own constituents -- not by refusing to grab as much money as possible out of some quaint notion that they're supposed to instead serve the national interest.

rohar: Because in all of recent history, [the debt] hasn't ever gone down:

I agree that just raising taxes alone wouldn't be enough to lower the debt, not without a dedicated plan.

sarcastrophe: If "starving the beast" didn't work for Reagan, what makes you think "feeding the beast" is going to work for anyone?

It's not that hard to support intelligent candidates. Speak to your friends. Go to rallies. Set up rallies. Write your representatives (and it does work).

Lastly, eliminate the Republican party. Some of them should have their citizenship revoked, let alone let them serve in government. Get a viable second party that is dedicated to doing things right (though our debt/GDP ratio is moderate, and I'm not totally sure if it's advisable to go to zero debt). The reality is we could have been almost paid up by now, had we not let idiots in government. (And some would say not let them steal it). Just stand up, and stop supporting Republican values every chance you get.

Seriously, open up your lungs, breath in the air. Enjoy liberalism. Your life will be better. Your girlfriend will give better head.

We can take back our government. Resorting to libertarian fantasies is not the answer.

rohar: Because in all of recent history, it hasn't ever gone down:
Link (new window)

It was totally doable at the end of the 90's. (And it wasn't some accounting trick).

I, at this point, would also support a liberal revolution.

bartink: helix400: Because my argument is against a zero-sum economic pie concept.

Its also not an infinite sum game.

Its also not a game. I wonder what event is going to drive Obama to toss his stoll and hat into the fireplace.

cousin-merle: I read the source, you read some lying sycophant. You have already been proven wrong. Sorry.

So I take it you give up. You can't find income per earner per quintile or per decile. You definitely can find a lot of meaningless data that doesn't explain income per earner. But not the crucial important data.

Your last few posts show you've moved on from providing data relevant to the discussion, and are instead interested in posturing. So I'll posture back.

I win.

whidbey: rohar: Because in all of recent history, [the debt] hasn't ever gone down:

I agree that just raising taxes alone wouldn't be enough to lower the debt, not without a dedicated plan.

Yeah, that's where I always end up the same place. We've changed parties a dozen times, we've ajusted tax brackets both way any number of times and the result with respect to the debt is always the same. I can predict, with 100% statistical confidence it will go up again this year. How bout we try something different, like cutting spending?

From each according to how hated his class is, to each according to which pressure group has the loudest voices.

sloppy shoes: sarcastrophe:
We can take back our government. Resorting to libertarian fantasies is not the answer.

This sentiment is one of the worst in American politics. That "we" can take back "our" government. It's the same sentiment that led to the "real America" crap. The country belongs to no party, no group of like-minded individuals. The presumption that oneself belongs to the party that is right and deserving goes against the founding principles of the nation.

rohar: How bout we try something different, like cutting spending?

I'd be happy to. Start with the military.

whidbey: rohar: How bout we try something different, like cutting spending?

I'd be happy to. Start with the military.

Yeah because we needs more arms trained young guys walking around without a job. God I love this. Party like it's 2012.

whidbey: I agree that just raising taxes alone wouldn't be enough to lower the debt, not without a dedicated plan.

I expect it'll take something drastic for politicians and their constituents to not only consider what may seem to be perfectly good spending priorities in the present, but what liabilities we are projected to incur later on. If the budget deficit resembled California's shortfall just from 'core' spending priorities, that might cause people to wonder if perhaps they should start to think about it in the following years.

inv: This sentiment is one of the worst in American politics. That "we" can take back "our" government. It's the same sentiment that led to the "real America" crap. The country belongs to no party, no group of like-minded individuals. The presumption that oneself belongs to the party that is right and deserving goes against the founding principles of the nation.

Ughh...no. This country has no business dealing with certain types of people- people who want no taxes, people who think the wealthy deserve everything, people who want religion in government, people who don't want to help the poor, etc...

Taxing the rich will help for a while. But I can't believe the people that forgot how it was before Reagan. When taxes were super high?

How much did CEOs make? There were a lot that claimed to work for free, but got far more than they do now.

I'm all for punishing the rich but they will find a way to get their 30 million in compensation back.

It comes down to this. Who do you hate more, lazy farks or rich farks? Obama is bringing us together. Baby, can you feel the love?

Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: Yeah because we needs more arms trained young guys walking around without a job. God I love this. Party like it's 2012.

Got any ideas or are you just gonna gripe like a biatch?

sarcastrophe: sloppy shoes: Why?

If "starving the beast" didn't work for Reagan, what makes you think "feeding the beast" is going to work for anyone?

My dogs are a lot nicer when I feed them. . .

helix400: So I take it you give up. You can't find income per earner per quintile or per decile. You definitely can find a lot of meaningless data that doesn't explain income per earner. But not the crucial important data.

Your last few posts show you've moved on from providing data relevant to the discussion, and are instead interested in posturing. So I'll posture back.

I win.

Considering you never even bothered to find the source data which is linked to the lying blog you trust so blindly, I'll take your posturing with a grain of salt. Besides, you've been called out by multiple people. I don't understand how you could think you look the better by clinging to disproven wingnuttery. Yes, I am drinking and got the household data per quintile. It doesn't make any difference though. It's not like I'm hiding the individual data. I'm drinking, and I have better things to do than find every document on the census site when you're already clearly wrong. I have facts, and you have blogger opinion.

.gov .ftw

sloppy shoes: It's not that hard to support intelligent candidates. Speak to your friends. Go to rallies. Set up rallies. Write your representatives (and it does work).

Lastly, eliminate the Republican party. Some of them should have their citizenship revoked, let alone let them serve in government. Get a viable second party that is dedicated to doing things right (though our debt/GDP ratio is moderate, and I'm not totally sure if it's advisable to go to zero debt). The reality is we could have been almost paid up by now, had we not let idiots in government. (And some would say not let them steal it). Just stand up, and stop supporting Republican values every chance you get.

Seriously, open up your lungs, breath in the air. Enjoy liberalism. Your life will be better. Your girlfriend will give better head.

We can take back our government. Resorting to libertarian fantasies is not the answer.

Democrats are not the answer to this problem. Central control by a federal government does not solve anything. It's just shifts the power from banks to government. Moreover, there is little difference between the two. I would prefer strong state governments and limited federal government. Of course, when you say such things, people just tell you that you're a nutjob, so meh. I just go on and keep biatching and moaning about it.

However, if you think the Democrats would *EVER* adopt anything even remotely close to such a broad policy, you're confused. If the Republicans purged the liberal foreign policies and stopped pandering to the religious right, I could fit in there. The chances of that happening, of course, are slim to none.

Fun fact: My party preferences when voting are that I vote L for federal government when possible, otherwise R or abstain. But for state government, I normally vote D (unless there's an L) or abstain, but never an R.

whidbey: rohar: How bout we try something different, like cutting spending?

I'd be happy to. Start with the military.

I'm on board, now all we have to do is convice how many others?

/this is gonna be a long tough fight.

colbert_rules: How much did CEOs make? There were a lot that claimed to work for free, but got far more than they do now.

If memory serves, there was a Clinton-era change in the tax law which excluded salary exceeding $1M from being a deductible business expense. The change was designed to push companies in the direction of using performance-based compensation methods, such as stock options.

I bet I know one part of the system that's getting a big boost from the government employment push. TSA is giving seminars to the IRS right now on how to use a crowbar to best effect. But hey, let's blame the bankers. After all they printing the money, lowered the rates and told themselves to loan or else. Oh wait, that would be the Fed and Barney Frank in the hugely powerful whatever committee he chairs in the House. But if you look at the polls, Obama and his lawyer buddies in congress have convinced it was the bank's fault. Ok, sure.

Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: It comes down to this. Who do you hate more, lazy farks or rich farks? Obama is bringing us together. Baby, can you feel the love?

Dick Cheney was rich, not lazy. Therefore, the rich.

sarcastrophe: Democrats are not the answer to this problem. Central control by a federal government does not solve anything. It's just shifts the power from banks to government. Moreover, there is little difference between the two. I would prefer strong state governments and limited federal government. Of course, when you say such things, people just tell you that you're a nutjob, so meh. I just go on and keep biatching and moaning about it.

However, if you think the Democrats would *EVER* adopt anything even remotely close to such a broad policy, you're confused. If the Republicans purged the liberal foreign policies and stopped pandering to the religious right, I could fit in there. The chances of that happening, of course, are slim to none.

Fun fact: My party preferences when voting are that I vote L for federal government when possible, otherwise R or abstain. But for state government, I normally vote D (unless there's an L) or abstain, but never an R.

1. I never said Democrats are the answer. Liberal values are, though.

2. Your problem is you appear to view parties as an answer. This is where you're wrong, especially since American parties change with the times- part of the reason we only ever really have two. (I picked everyone on my ballot by their positions, not party lines. For my state's university system, I picked several Republicans based upon their survey answers towards philosophies for improving the universities, even though we already have top notch ones).

3. We will need central control for some things, and state control for others. As always.

4. For the most part, Republicans need to be purged. So do Libertarians. They are a huge part of our problems.

cousin-merle: Yes, I am drinking and got the household data per quintile. It doesn't make any difference though.

What about reading the data since 1994 data as going down, not up?

Besides, you've been called out by multiple people.

Oh no, whidbey, bartink, and spamdog don't like me! That's 3 against 1. An obvious proof I'm wrong!

I'm drinking, and I have better things to do than find every document on the census site when you're already clearly wrong

Translation: I won't believe those numbers because they contradict my preconceived notion. So I'll call anyone who presents such numbers an "internet patriot" and a "liar". I also can't find any numbers to back up my preconceived notion. So I'll go back to drinking and posturing.

It's probably your best option right now. I'll move onto better things as well. It's no fun arguing details and numbers with someone whose drinking.

helix400: whose

Bleh. By whose, I meant who is.

sloppy shoes: 2. Your problem is you appear to view parties as an answer. This is where you're wrong, especially since American parties change with the times- part of the reason we only ever really have two. (I picked everyone on my ballot by their positions, not party lines. For my state's university system, I picked several Republicans based upon their survey answers towards philosophies for improving the universities, even though we already have top notch ones).

You did not read what I said. I research every candidate on the ballot. If I think they're off base, then I look elsewhere or abstain.

sloppy shoes: 4. For the most part, Republicans need to be purged. So do Libertarians. They are a huge part of our problems.

I do not agree with your conclusion. Liberal values are about control, just like Republican values.

sarcastrophe: Central control by a federal government does not solve anything. It's just shifts the power from banks to government. Moreover, there is little difference between the two. I would prefer strong state governments and limited federal government. Of course, when you say such things, people just tell you that you're a nutjob, so meh. I just go on and keep biatching and moaning about it.

I hate to break this to you, but issues like slavery, the civil rights movement and abortion have severely weakened the concept of a bunch of states having the same sovereignty as the federal govt.

The concept of the US being one big country instead of 50 is taking precedence.

Not that I agree with that course of events. But the grand experiment isn't being respected.

If/when we ever reach the goal of a "world government," countries will be regarded with the same level of sovereignty states now have, and if we don't consider them important in this federation, how can we respect them in a bigger UN-type political scenario?

You stupid farks are acquainting yourselves with Adam Smith?

helix400: Oh no, whidbey, bartink, and spamdog don't like me! That's 3 against 1. An obvious proof I'm wrong!

I'm actually wondering if you're just trolling at this point.