If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   The income gap between poor and rich in the United States has grown more dramatically under President Obama than Bush or Clinton. This guy is a lousy socialist   (news.investors.com) divider line 341
    More: Interesting, President Obama, United States, income inequality, Emmanuel Saez, wealth redistribution, socialists  
•       •       •

1100 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 04:00:01 PM

AurizenDarkstar: Hell, the former Soviets sure as hell weren't communists OR socialists.


Nobody wanted to jump on this? Claiming that the Soviets weren't communists? What about the American communist party that supported them? Were they communists? What about Marx, did he advocate Communism?

No true Communist?

zappaisfrank: Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?


I said it pretty plainly.
 
2013-07-31 04:02:18 PM

DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
[abearsrant.com image 500x407]


Please tell me the first one is just a joke and not conservative "thought".

The second one is spot on, mostly due to GOP messaging that Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed, even though reality has them center right at the moment.
 
2013-07-31 04:04:12 PM

zappaisfrank: Actually, no. Unemployed is unemployed. In both scenarios, the objective is profit. It doesn't matter if it was eighty years ago or ten years ago. The difference I see is that Ford then, as today, still employs workers on American soil. The Bain type groups took the money and left devastated communities in their wake without a care. Again, we see that Ford's motives, while profit based, also considered the wider ranging effects on their potential customers, AKA the American working class. Bain, not so much.


The point is Bain type groups couldn't have existed as they exist now at that time.  We were pretty much the only manufacturing dynamo left as a result of two world wars.  Now that industry has steadily improved from the end of the second world war, capitalism is looking else where for it's manufacturing needs as America isn't the only place that can do it any more.

Further, it has been easier to improve off shoring of jobs and capital as technology has improved.  It's a completely different world than it was at that point.  Had Ford had the technology to produce his products cheaper and not in America he would have in a second.  With the advent of NAFTA it's not a guarantee that all Ford parts are made in the USA any more.
 
2013-07-31 04:09:47 PM

AeAe: weddingsinger: Here's a great video showing just how big the wealth/income gap is in the U.S., and even how it's changed in the last 30 years.

To break it down for those too lazy to watch a 5 minute video,

3 million people (the 1%) have 40% of the wealth.  That's $21 Trillion ($7,000,000 per person)
250 million people (80% of us) split up only 7%, or $4 Trillion ($16,000 per person).
The poorest 6% of americans don't even register as having any wealth.  That's almost 20 million people who aren't just poor, but have NOTHING of real value.

That is clearly an unsustainable trend.  We can't keep funneling all the wealth to ultra wealthy.


My question is: Who are the 6%?  Because if they're 20-somethings just out of college with $100K in student debt trying to pay rent through "artistic expression", yeah that's expected.  If they're 20-somethings, that's fairly normal.  Because the system is designed to utterly screw you until about 5 years out of college (The way financial aid works, the student isn't actually allowed to make any money in college, and then you get out and you're competing with 40-somethings with 20 years of experience and double your pay for the same real estate, so saving is really farking hard.  I've got over a quarter of my takehome going to nothing but debts, and another 30% to rent and I'm making 2x what my parents are.).

The problem is if they're still in the 6% years and years and years from now unto eternity (and more importantly, if their kids are trapped there indefinitely as well).

/And oh hey, there's 11 million illegal immigrants helping to ensure that the average wage for Hispanics in Silicon Valley is $19000/year in a land of $2000+/month rents.  That's 3% of your 6% right there.
 
2013-07-31 04:09:48 PM
IBD: WorldNutDaily with bigger words.
 
2013-07-31 04:09:54 PM

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?

I said it pretty plainly.


So you don't know what the hell you're saying, either?
 
2013-07-31 04:12:00 PM
When things are already heading downhill and the Republicans have cut the brake lines the finish in the race to the bottom is only a matter time.
 
2013-07-31 04:26:40 PM

meat0918: DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
[abearsrant.com image 500x407]

Please tell me the first one is just a joke and not conservative "thought".

The second one is spot on, mostly due to GOP messaging that Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed, even though reality has them center right at the moment.


The first one cites W. Cleon Skousen, John Birch Society heavyweight and Glenn Beck mentor of sorts (not sure which is more damning), so I'mma guess it's an accurate reflection of what the far right thinks and just as reality-based as you'd expect.
 
2013-07-31 04:28:23 PM
This guy is a lousy socialist Bilderberg plant.
 
2013-07-31 04:31:06 PM
Again, I ask, why won't the Democrats do something about the problems that Republican's don't care about?
 
2013-07-31 04:43:50 PM
Mrbogey:

zappaisfrank: Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?

I said it pretty plainly.


Translation-I'm not going to answer your question because I honestly can't. I just like being purposely arbitrary.
 
2013-07-31 05:01:03 PM

Yellow Beard: Geotpf: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote).

Right now, the Republicans control the House, so they can and are blocking any further legislation, and are actively hurting the poor and employment levels by cutting government spending via the sequester and other means.

That is, blame Congress, which writes and passes laws, not the President, who only can sign (or veto) them and implement them after they have been passed.  American Constitution Law 101.

So we can blame congress for all of Bush's gigantic blunders too?


One of the few things a President can do without direct approval from Congress is to bomb another country, and the invasion of Iraq was easily the biggest blunder that Bush made.  And, yes, we can blame Congress on a more minor level for passing a bill that said they approved, but said bill was mostly optional, frankly.  I frankly believe that the fact that Clinton and Kerry both voted for said bill is the reason why neither ever became President.

Passing a budget or any other law is different; the first stop is Congress and if they don't approve the law isn't going anywhere.
 
2013-07-31 05:03:14 PM

meat0918: DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
[abearsrant.com image 500x407]

Please tell me the first one is just a joke and not conservative "thought".

The second one is spot on, mostly due to GOP messaging that Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed, even though reality has them center right at the moment.


The first is from American Stinker
 
2013-07-31 05:43:10 PM

nocturnal001: zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: A "True Capitalist" is someone wise enough to want EVERYONE to be rich.

HAHAHAHAHA

Care to elaborate on why that comment is so "funny"?

A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?

That really depends if he is thinking long run or short run.

Short run it makes perfect business sense to outsource all of your production as you can still take advantage of relatively "wealthy" Americans to buy your products.  In the long run that is a losing proposition and as history shows ends up with your head on a pike.

For me, what I'm most pissed off about is that although I'm far from the .1 or 1%, being a top 5%-er will mean that the schlubs will cut off my head as well.


Save yourself! Work tirelessly with all the vast resources available to you to improve the economic life of your lessers. I believe FDR made the same argument to his era's very wealthy: My programs are the only thing standing between you and an angry mob.

/ it might take a few angry mobs tearing bankers apart before they get the hint.
// that would probably be a good thing
 
2013-07-31 05:44:03 PM

DarwiOdrade: So you're saying Obama's a better Republican than most Republicans?


So was Clinton.
 
2013-07-31 05:51:46 PM
Okay, so Obama is building the Democrat political base. If Americans are well off they will voted for a party that says "We want you to keep your money." The more Americans are struggling, the more they are willing to vote for a party that says "We will take money away from rich people and give it to you."  Thus, the ideal long-term Democrat strategy is to widen the income gap as much as possible and push as many people as possible onto the lowest rungs. This will build their voter base. Widespread prosperity is bad for long-term Democratic party dominance, since once people have money, they want to keep it. However, crushing everyone is also bad for Democrats, since it is harder to play the class war card during elections. Thus, Democrats must maintain a despised wealthy scapegoat class that's not too large and a large impoverished (but not toooo impoverished--that makes people stop voting, altogether) mass to hate the wealthy and keep voting for Democrats.

Note that this has nothing at all to do with "moral" issues. This is where the Republican strategy comes in, and it can dovetail nicely with the Democrat strategy. After all, if you are demonized by Democrats, you will donate to Republicans. Republicans then work issues of race and "morality, which are much stronger in many voters' minds when they are economically weak. In essence, if a lot of people are materially comfortable, they're a lot more willing to just let everybody else do whatever they want to. If belt-tightening becomes a regular event, then it becomes very easy to compensate for feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness by focussing on race, "moral" issues, or other "wedge" issues.

Thus, it is in the best interests of both major political parties for the income gap to widen in the USA.
 
2013-07-31 05:53:11 PM

FlashHarry: SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.

SpankMeJohnny
Account created:    2013-07-05 12:32:39

oh, look - another one!


I can ignore that troll in one post, Alex!
 
2013-07-31 06:10:03 PM
"121% of the gains in real income during Obama's recovery have gone to the top 1%."

 ?? So... the top 1% got 21% MORE gains than 100% of the gains? Do I need some coffee, or is that phrased poorly?

I mean I know that football players GIVE 120%, but I didn't realize the team owners TOOK 121%.
 
2013-07-31 06:15:35 PM
I blame Obama's socialism. The comments on that article do as well, and comments on an Investors.com website have to be from well-rounded, educated people.
 
2013-07-31 06:19:19 PM

imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: I am not sure what you mean by criminal profits.

The totally unregulated derivatives market, for starters, loans issued without regard to risk in order to be packaged and sold, rating investments at AAA for investors, including the pension funds you mentioned, while dumping their holdings in anticipation of a crash, manipulating the Libor rate to generate hundreds of millions as money flies around from bank to bank, high frequency trading that uses supercomputers to basically generate money out of thin air

The problem is that most of these things are not technically criminal, because the banks and their cohorts own the politicians and regulators who get to decide what is criminal.  These people make massive short term profits, while pumping up bubbles that will inevitably pop, causing severe economic crises that affect regular people, while the TBTF criminal organizations get taxpayer subsidized bailouts.

Having a supposedly democratic system be controlled by a small group of moneyed interests to the point that they are able to crash the economy to line their pockets with quarterly profits is bad for everyone.  I don't understand how people have difficulty seeing this.


No, not everyone. Just those of us temporarily not extremely wealthy. The TBTF banksters? Yeah, they made record bonuses by crashing the economy.
 
2013-07-31 06:25:55 PM

qorkfiend: Geotpf: The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote)

Also remember that that "control" was predicated on the idea that guys like Joe Lieberman (who singlehandedly killed the public option) and Bill Nelson (anyone remember the Cornhusker Kickback?) would vote with the Dems. So, to actually exercise that "control", the Dems had to cater to them.


Or strip them of all chairmanships and power, move them into basement "offices" near the furnaces and shame them publicly and often. I guess catering to them worked pretty well though.. Thanks, Reid.
 
2013-07-31 06:34:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: "121% of the gains in real income during Obama's recovery have gone to the top 1%."

 ?? So... the top 1% got 21% MORE gains than 100% of the gains? Do I need some coffee, or is that phrased poorly?

I mean I know that football players GIVE 120%, but I didn't realize the team owners TOOK 121%.


Basically, the continued collapse in unskilled employment (ie: Replacement with robots/chinamen) combined with the rise in temp labor combined with the introduction of millions of unskilled laborers to create a new bottom 5-10% (so everyone gets a nudge up in the rankings, but the rankings themselves fall fairly hard) has led to a decrease in total income for the poorest 80th percentiles of Americans.

In the meantime, the super-rich have been taking advantage of automation/China/a massive oversupply of unskilled labor and economies of scale amongst the skilled labor to become even richer.
 
2013-07-31 06:38:12 PM

meyerkev: Basically, the continued collapse in unskilled employment (ie: Replacement with robots/chinamen) combined with the rise in temp labor combined with the introduction of millions of unskilled laborers to create a new bottom 5-10% (so everyone gets a nudge up in the rankings, but the rankings themselves fall fairly hard) has led to a decrease in total income for the poorest 80th percentiles of Americans.

In the meantime, the super-rich have been taking advantage of automation/China/a massive oversupply of unskilled labor and economies of scale amongst the skilled labor to become even richer.


Yeah. I meant more "how can they have gained MORE than 100% of the total gains" and is this Yogi Berra math?

I get the part that everyone else's income has dropped .4% part easy.
 
2013-07-31 07:25:04 PM
Listening to Americans talk about politics is like watching a dog try to operate a mass spectrometer.
 
2013-07-31 07:35:40 PM

Phil Moskowitz: Listening to Americans talk about politics is like watching a dog try to operate a mass spectrometer.


Yet we're the envy of the world. Go figure.

/Suck it, rest of the world!
 
2013-07-31 08:14:42 PM
The My Little Pony Killer
You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."

cdn.breitbart.com
Bad cop

images.politico.com
Good cop
 
2013-07-31 08:16:54 PM

Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?


oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.
 
2013-07-31 09:19:37 PM

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


Are you here to tell us about how he lied about promising to improve the economy, or would you like to tell us how a PhD in Religious  History is not the same thing as a PhD in history of religion? Or should we really dredge up the past and discuss the lies that are rampant in the distinctions between an act of terror and a terrorist act?

And why not use your real name? You know, posting under an alternate identity is, after all, a kind of lie.
 
2013-07-31 10:19:02 PM

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.


the dimwits are plumbing new depths of idiocy with the whole "hay guys obammy is a center right conservative" thing

*most dramatic facepalm ever*
 
2013-07-31 11:06:53 PM

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.


Oh look another moron who doesn't know what a progressive is.  Even for you that comment was stupid.
 
2013-07-31 11:07:43 PM

Outrageous Muff: Dusk-You-n-Me: It may or may not surprise you that some of Obama's fiercest critics are those to his left.

Yeah, real liberals. People that have the balls to both call themselves and promote liberal ideals. Progressives are nothing more than scared school children who no longer want to be called liberal because being a proud liberal became too hard.


Vaguely reminds me of Iranians who prefer to call themselves Persian.
 
2013-07-31 11:21:12 PM

the_dude_abides: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.

the dimwits are plumbing new depths of idiocy with the whole "hay guys obammy is a center right conservative" thing

*most dramatic facepalm ever*


Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal? (after he became unpopular of course)

Well let's see. Obama is pro business, lukewarm on progressive social issues, and loves dropping bombs on brown people. Not really the picture of a classical liberal.

Good luck in 2016
 
2013-07-31 11:54:19 PM

nocturnal001: Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal?


His economic policies were your run of the mill statist, which most presidents since Ike have been to begin with.  Using big government to promote conservative ideas doens't make one a conservative.

Fart_Machine: Oh look another moron who doesn't know what a progressive is.  Even for you that comment was stupid


I know exactly what a progressive is.   All we hear about is how the Constitution is a document of "Negative liberties" how taxes arent high enough, Obamacare is a restrained, moderate solution to healthcare reform and there isn't enough spending on works projects.  Those are clearly policies of radically conservative administrations.  you're right.  I think that was Goldwater's platform in '64 wasn't it?

If you simply didn't know, you might have an excuse but the fact that you've probable been exposed to what progressivism is and cant draw the parallel is perhaps the saddest thing of all.  it isn't just that you dont know but that you're so affirmed in how right you think you are.
 
2013-08-01 12:13:16 AM

o5iiawah: Those are clearly policies of radically conservative administrations.


Have you been sniffing glue again?  Nobody said he was a "radical conservative" but he's simply not a progressive.  Obama is a moderate centrist.  If you believe he's truly a radical liberal then it just shows how far over the edge you really are.

o5iiawah: Using big government to promote conservative ideas doens't make one a conservative.


He wasn't a True Scotsman either.

o5iiawah: I know exactly what a progressive is.


Sure you do.  According to your definition Reagan was progressive.  It just shows how far right the Republican party has gone in the past thirty years.
 
2013-08-01 01:45:21 AM

Gyrfalcon: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

Are you here to tell us about how he lied about promising to improve the economy, or would you like to tell us how a PhD in Religious  History is not the same thing as a PhD in history of religion? Or should we really dredge up the past and discuss the lies that are rampant in the distinctions between an act of terror and a terrorist act?

And why not use your real name? You know, posting under an alternate identity is, after all, a kind of lie.


He keeps leaving...
 
2013-08-01 02:00:45 AM
Except that the bottom point was in early 2010, and since then (the actual Obama recovery in any rational sense, he could hardly be expected to reverse things instantly) median incomes have risen substantially. It is almost as if the article is a pack of disingenuous lies!
 
2013-08-01 05:10:49 AM

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.

Funny, considering socialists use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" inaccurately to describe themselves.


Oh god, my irony meter just farking exploded.

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?

I said it pretty plainly.


Aye, and that's the problem.  It's inaccurate, simplistic, buzzword fodder for bumper stickers.

Mrbogey: AurizenDarkstar: Hell, the former Soviets sure as hell weren't communists OR socialists.

Nobody wanted to jump on this? Claiming that the Soviets weren't communists? What about the American communist party that supported them? Were they communists? What about Marx, did he advocate Communism?

No true Communist?


And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't really democratic or a republic.  I'd say the Soviets were dissimilar enough from other flavors, so to speak, of communism that  AurizenDarkstar'spoint has merit.

For example, I've heard the USSR described as the world's largest corporation.  The entire state and economy was controlled by a singlehierarchical, authoritarian, bureaucracy.  There are definitely some interesting parallels between a typical corporation and Stalinism.
 
2013-08-01 05:47:27 AM

nocturnal001: the_dude_abides: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.

the dimwits are plumbing new depths of idiocy with the whole "hay guys obammy is a center right conservative" thing

*most dramatic facepalm ever*

Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal? (after he became unpopular of course)

Well let's see. Obama is pro business, lukewarm on progressive social issues, and loves dropping bombs on brown people. Not really the picture of a classical liberal.

Good luck in 2016


I think we can safely say that nobody wants him.  Who's up for an impeachment?
 
2013-08-01 09:04:20 AM

Gyrfalcon: Gyrfalcon: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

Are you here to tell us about how he lied about promising to improve the economy, or would you like to tell us how a PhD in Religious  History is not the same thing as a PhD in history of religion? Or should we really dredge up the past and discuss the lies that are rampant in the distinctions between an act of terror and a terrorist act?

And why not use your real name? You know, posting under an alternate identity is, after all, a kind of lie.

He keeps leaving...


If you must know, my other login is waaaaaaay more troll-y than this one. I don't post under it on the regular because it's too specialized, it's "Creepy Ass-Cracka"

Unless it's a Zimmerman thread, no one is going to take me seriously using that login.

The reason I posted that comment is contained within the comment itself. I was pointing out a fallacy in the thinking of those unversed in economics.
 
2013-08-01 09:29:23 AM

tbeatty: nocturnal001: the_dude_abides: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.

the dimwits are plumbing new depths of idiocy with the whole "hay guys obammy is a center right conservative" thing

*most dramatic facepalm ever*

Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal? (after he became unpopular of course)

Well let's see. Obama is pro business, lukewarm on progressive social issues, and loves dropping bombs on brown people. Not really the picture of a classical liberal.

Good luck in 2016

I think we can safely say that nobody wants him.  Who's up for an impeachment?


President Biden?

Awesome. He was my pick from the start.
 
2013-08-02 01:12:56 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.

The people who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, including a former candidate for President  in TWO Democratic conventions was a Republican?  Really?

Dude, stop trying to re-write history.  Fletch isn't going to happen.


Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27

But yeah, Democrats totally blocked it from passing.

/Sure, there were a bunch of Democrats from the South that voted against it.
 
Displayed 41 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report