Printable View
[QUOTE=Esten;417162]Anyone with half a brain knows the problem is two-fold[/QUOTE]Exactly!
It takes a big man to confess, Esten. But, you've obviously put your finger on the problem: There are too many half-wits just like you in Washington.
Once we get the half-brained, left-wing politicians out of there, and replace them with some full-brained representatives, then we'll make some progress.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 417149]HappyGoLucky, please at least make an effort to arm yourself with facts before making absurd arguments.
[i][b]Are Public Sector Workers Overcompensated? [/b]
Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers.
Again, we don't have a revenue problem, except to the extent the rich pay too much in taxes. [/QUOTE]Stan, I think we'd probably agree that statistics are what people make of them. For example, the data analysis in this paper from the Economic Policy Institute indicates that public employees, both state and local government, are not overpaid compared to the private sector:
[url]http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/debunking_the_myth_of_the_overcompensated_public_employee/[/url]
Regarding the rich "paying too much in taxes",
CNN Money's Chris Isidore looked at the gap between rich and middle-class Americans back during the holidays. He wrote on December 23:
"The richest 1% of USA households had a net worth 225 times greater than that of the average American household in 2009, according to analysis conducted by the Economic Policy Institute. That's up from the previous record of 190 times greater, which was set in 2004."
Meanwhile a recent study from the Commerce Department shed some light on an issue that we already know. Over the past 20 years the middle class has been falling behind:
[url]http://www.mybudget360.com/income-budget-game-over-for-the-american-middle-class-inflation-adjusted-wages-up-20-percent-in-last-20-years-while-housing-costs-are-up-56-percent-and-healthcare-costs-are-up-155-percent/[/url]
I suppose one might make the argument that these studies were done by "liberals" and therefore biased, but the same can be said of GOP think tanks.
The real bottom line is the extinction of the middle class as we knew it growing up:
"Think of the rise of our economy in the 1940s and 1950s. Many returning GIs had access to affordable education through new programs and grants. It is the least you can offer to someone defending this country. Next, it was possible to support a family with one income because we had a strong and sustainable manufacturing base. Now, we have families with two incomes in the service sector trying to piece things together. Throw in a child, and that second income evaporates through childcare costs and educational fees. In other words, just because people have more income their buying power has collapsed."
"While writing about the increasing income disparity between America's rich and middle class, CNN Money's Annalyn Censky threw out this zinger:
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33, 400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33, 000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans — those making $380, 000 or more — have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust."
So Stan, what kind of a country do we want? It seems like we're fast approaching a nation of only two polarities, the haves and the have-nots; it reminds me of Paraguay.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 417196]There's a blog out there cataloging all of the many inconsistencies of the Obama Administration regarding Osama bin Laden's killing. Obama was armed; then he wasn't; he used his wife as a shield; no he didn't; his wife died; no, just shot in the leg and it wasn't his wife; etc, etc.
[url]http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/05/04/the-obama-administrations-cloud-of-confusion-explained/[/url]
Most of it is pretty mundane, but I thought the following was priceless and wanted to share:
[i]The idiot Carney — they actually managed to find someone who makes Gibbs look good — is currently twisting himself into knots trying to explain why the photograph that the whole world was expecting isn't going to be released. (Obviously the thing to do is get Trump on the case, he'll force Obama to release it.) [/i]
LOL. Thing is, I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump take up the cudgel. [/QUOTE]If you (any senior monger) ever hear me criticizing Obama for giving the 'go' to the OP that rid this world of the scum-sucking swine named Osama Bin Laden, I will buy you a beer at your choice of Bs As chica bars. That said, Obama (and his ilk) is his own worst enemy in this situation. It's like Watergate, the cover up is the problem. If they weren't so busy trying to recast what happened into some Disney tale (that avoids complying with the Bush Doctrine) , everyone would be on board. If I were advising Obama (as this thing went down) I'd tell him to tell the US,"we found out where this POS was hiding, we went in, we found him and we took this mutherf*cker out." End of story. Everything else the administration has said has unnecessarily complicated the matter. Just shut the fuck up and bask in the glory. These idiots could fuck up a wet dream.
I don't care if Osama had an AK47 or his pecker in his hand, if I walked into that room, he would have caught a double tap in the noggin. I would have greased everyone with whom I came into contact. I would have buried that POS inside the body cavity of Hogzilla, in my back yard. I don't care if they were armed or not. If you hang with Osama, you can burn in hell with him.
All of the aforementioned said, I'm just a monger, not the POTUS. If I were the POTUS, I would have rescinded Executive Order 12333 just prior to the commencement of the op. I would then, prophylactically grant all members of Team 6 presidential pardons to protect them from prosecution within the US by liberals. When asked by the liberal media, I would say,"it doesn't matter if he was armed (non of the folks at the three sites of carnage on 9/11 were armed) or not, we were there to dispatch him with extreme prejudice. Are you {mr. Liberal media guy] pro Osama?" "You're pro-Osama? I think that the American people should know that [name of news outlet] is taking sides against the USA."
As it stands, it looks like Obama has violated Executive Order 12333 and many of the members of his administration (excluding Obama) have been actively and intentionally misleading the press and the public. The less he says the better. If he keeps yapping, team 6 is going to be the focus of a tribunal in den Hague and he is setting himself up to be impeached by the likes of Dennis Kucinich.
You are totally right. Since there is no picture, Obama, Gates, Clinton, Biden, SEAL, Pakistan government- all of them are lying.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 417196]There's a blog out there cataloging all of the many inconsistencies of the Obama Administration regarding Osama bin Laden's killing. Obama was armed; then he wasn't; he used his wife as a shield; no he didn't; his wife died; no, just shot in the leg and it wasn't his wife; etc, etc.
[url]http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/05/04/the-obama-administrations-cloud-of-confusion-explained/[/url]
Most of it is pretty mundane, but I thought the following was priceless and wanted to share:
[i]The idiot Carney — they actually managed to find someone who makes Gibbs look good — is currently twisting himself into knots trying to explain why the photograph that the whole world was expecting isn't going to be released. (Obviously the thing to do is get Trump on the case, he'll force Obama to release it.) [/i]
LOL. Thing is, I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump take up the cudgel. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;416935]Please provide some support for your assertions that "wealth" is increasingly "accumulating in a small subset of the population" resulting in "unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class."[/QUOTE]Stan, see below HGL's post and my added comments. And as you know unemployment is the highest in decades, and the poverty rate is at a 15-year high (and near a 40-year high) :
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17poverty.html[/url]
[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky; 417207]CNN Money's Chris Isidore looked at the gap between rich and middle-class Americans back during the holidays. He wrote on December 23:
"The richest 1% of USA households had a net worth 225 times greater than that of the average American household in 2009, according to analysis conducted by the Economic Policy Institute. That's up from the previous record of 190 times greater, which was set in 2004."
Meanwhile a recent study from the Commerce Department shed some light on an issue that we already know. Over the past 20 years the middle class has been falling behind: [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"While writing about the increasing income disparity between America's rich and middle class, CNN Money's Annalyn Censky threw out this zinger:
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33, 400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33, 000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans — those making $380, 000 or more — have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust."[/QUOTE]
Good post. You might find this article interesting.
Study: Most Americans Want Wealth Distribution Similar to Sweden.
[url]http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/569425/study%3A_most_americans_want_wealth_distribution_similar_to_sweden[/url]
Click on the "research (PDF)" file and go to Figure 2 on page 12. This study is based on 5522 respondents in 2005. Figure 2 is remarkable. Wealth distribution was as follows:
Actual: Top quintile 84%, second quintile 11%, other three quintiles 5%
Estimated: Top quintile 58%, second quintile 20%, other three quintiles 22%
Ideal: Top quintile 32%, second quintile 22%, other three quintiles 46%
So people's estimates were low, but that was still perceived as too inequal. Imagine what people think of the actual- the bottom 60% with just 5% of all wealth.
Here is another good article. Between 1979-2007, share of after-tax income increased from 7% to 17% for the Top 1%. While it decreased from 58% to 48% for the bottom four-fifths. Lots of other good data and charts here too.
Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show
[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220[/url]
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 417210]If they weren't so busy trying to recast what happened into some Disney tale (that avoids complying with the Bush Doctrine) , everyone would be on board. If I were advising Obama (as this thing went down) I'd tell him to tell the US,"we found out where this POS was hiding, we went in, we found him and we took this mutherf*cker out." End of story. Everything else the administration has said has unnecessarily complicated the matter. Just shut the fuck up and bask in the glory. These idiots could fuck up a wet dream.
I don't care if Osama had an AK47 or his pecker in his hand, if I walked into that room, he would have caught a double tap in the noggin. I would have greased everyone with whom I came into contact. I would have buried that POS inside the body cavity of Hogzilla, in my back yard. I don't care if they were armed or not. If you hang with Osama, you can burn in hell with him.
All of the aforementioned said, I'm just a monger, not the POTUS. If I were the POTUS, I would have rescinded Executive Order 12333 just prior to the commencement of the op. I would then, prophylactically grant all members of Team 6 presidential pardons to protect them from prosecution within the US by liberals. When asked by the liberal media, I would say,"it doesn't matter if he was armed (non of the folks at the three sites of carnage on 9/11 were armed) or not, we were there to dispatch him with extreme prejudice. Are you {mr. Liberal media guy] pro Osama?" "You're pro-Osama? I think that the American people should know that [name of news outlet] is taking sides against the USA."
As it stands, it looks like Obama has violated Executive Order 12333 and many of the members of his administration (excluding Obama) have been actively and intentionally misleading the press and the public. The less he says the better. If he keeps yapping, team 6 is going to be the focus of a tribunal in den Hague and he is setting himself up to be impeached by the likes of Dennis Kucinich. [/QUOTE]Their problem is that the Navy SEALS lost the Miranda Warning cards that Holder gave them, so they had to improvise.
ROTFLMAO!
[QUOTE=Esten;417215]Stan, see below HGL's post and my added comments. And as you know unemployment is the highest in decades, and the poverty rate is at a 15-year high (and near a 40-year high) :[/QUOTE]Your post is a perfect example of why no one respects you here. You simply spout a bunch of mischief with no intention of supporting it, for obvious reasons. Here's what you said:
[QUOTE=Esten;416910]profits and wealth are increasingly accumulating in a small subset of the population. This is not happening without a cost. The trade-off is increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class.[/QUOTE]So, I asked for support for something you claim "we all know," that the 'trade-off' to "wealth" accumulation by the rich is "increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class."
The best you can do is argue that the rich make more today than before in relation to others? Where's the unemployment "we all know" this has caused? Where's the poverty "we all know" this has caused? I'm not sure what "stagnating wealth" means, but if it means that the middle class is doing as well as it was before, then I don't think I disagree. But, that certainly doesn't support [i]your[/i] Argument.
And HappyGoLucky's numbers certainly don't support your argument. Indeed, they undercut it.
He points to research by a liberal blogger, which he characterized as a "zinger" purporting to show that the adjusted for inflation median salary of the average American taxpayer is the same today as it was 20 years ago. Now, the underlying data is flawed, but let's take it at face value.
Do either of you understand what "adjusted for inflation" means? It means that these folks' purchasing power is the same. They're not in poverty, they're not worse off, economic policies have not caused them to decline or vanish. Your only argument is that it's not fair that these folks make as much as they did before, because others make more. But, that just gets us back to your standard class-envy socialist diatribe.
And, as I mentioned, the data you rely on is bogus. The data used by nearly everyone here is 'household income' not salaries. Why? Even in 1988, there were a far greater number of households with a single working spouse, and those households (then and today) overwhelmingly make up the bottom quintiles of income. But, if you look at median 'household income, ' you see that conditions have, in fact, improved. Using Happy's baseline period, median household income was $47, 251 in 1988 and it was $49, 777 in 2009 on an inflation-adjusted basis.
[url]http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php[/url]
That's 5% more in purchasing power [i]after being adjusted for inflation[/I] Than during 1988. And, that's measuring from boom times to recession (peak to trough) which is another problem with the data. Regardless, that's not stagnation; that's not poverty; and I'm still waiting for Esten to try to make any connection to unemployment. He can point to the fact that unemployment is bad, but there's no connection between that and the fact that the rich have more wealth. According to both of you, the rich have been getting richer for the past two decades. But, unemployment was historically very low during that time period. So, obviously, there is no correlation there. Where is there a correlation? Hey, you don't have too look far. Perhaps you might want to check into your President's foolhardy economic policies. More than anything else, they have caused the prolonged spike in unemployment.
About two years ago, the Obama Administration tried to start making a correlation between the Obama Presidency and the Reagan Presidency. It was a stretch, at best, particularly since the Obama campaign made it a point to chide anyone who believed in capitalism and said that the economy was proof that Reaganomics didn't work. Yet, a year into office, there was Obama trying to get mentioned in the same breath as Reagan.
Well, it's obvious now that Obama deserves mention, but only to contrast Obamanomics with Reaganomis. Obama and Reagan took office at remarkably similar times. They have deployed polar opposite policies and taken the country in opposite directions. Compare for yourself which one works and which one doesn't.
[url]http://blogs.forbes.com/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/[/url]
There's not much of an argument.
Yes, after two years of federal government under the control of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the poverty and unemployment rates are at high levels. The USA has not bounced back from the 2008/2009 recession like it did from previous recessions -- see Stan's Forbes link below. And if the USA follows the same policies that Western Europe and Sweden did until recently, you can expect unemployment to remain at high levels. Esten, if you disagree with that last statement you're just not being realistic or reasonable.
The biggest reason for the disparities in wealth in the USA is that politicians, chiefly Democrats but also many Republicans, want a beholden underclass that will vote for them. They encourage people to spend with no thought for tomorrow. They encourage consumption and borrowing and discourage saving. They promote Ponzi schemes for social security and Medicare instead of having people put aside money for retirement, like in Singapore and Chile. The average American, and the lower middle class in the USA, have standards of living among the highest in the world. The reason they don't also have savings is because American government discourages it.
Everyday for the three weeks I having been checking on all the places for you to get Laid.
And only one or two have responded. Thank You!
Are you really getting off on Politics?
That is really Perverted.
This is One of the most civilized places to get laid.
I got a piece for US$25. And there a few left less expensive. I even gave a 10p tip.
I am on a fixed income. Social Security.
Are you really that frustrated, that you get off on Politics?
Find a massage place at home at least.
IF you do have one where you live, take trip to California. We have lots of Oriental girls. PM Me. But it is US$100.
Or at least come down here and tell me where I fucked on the prices on my Lists and I will buy you a free piece.
Come on take my bet. That should be easy, when my Spanish sucks.
I have listed over 100 privados, prove me wrong for this month and it is on me.
Jackson will cover my bet, because he owes me.
I fixed the his fucking leaky sinks, etc.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 417261]Yes, after two years of federal government under the control of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the poverty and unemployment rates are at high levels. The USA has not bounced back from the 2008/2009 recession like it did from previous recessions. See Stan's Forbes link below. And if the USA follows the same policies that Western Europe and Sweden did until recently, you can expect unemployment to remain at high levels. Esten, if you disagree with that last statement you're just not being realistic or reasonable.
The biggest reason for the disparities in wealth in the USA is that politicians, chiefly Democrats but also many Republicans, want a beholden underclass that will vote for them. They encourage people to spend with no thought for tomorrow. They encourage consumption and borrowing and discourage saving. They promote Ponzi schemes for social security and Medicare instead of having people put aside money for retirement, like in Singapore and Chile. The average American, and the lower middle class in the USA, have standards of living among the highest in the world. The reason they don't also have savings is because American government discourages it. [/QUOTE]
WT, I can sit down in front of my computer with a bottle of baby oil and the American Politics thread and it doesn't cost me anything. $0. That's right, zip, nada. And Esten really gets me hot. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Thanks again for the lists, for Argentina and elsewhere. I have used and will use them.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 417250]Well, it's obvious now that Obama deserves mention, but only to contrast Obamanomics with Reaganomis. Obama and Reagan took office at remarkably similar times. They have deployed polar opposite policies and taken the country in opposite directions. Compare for yourself which one works and which one doesn't.
[url]http://blogs.forbes.com/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/[/url]
There's not much of an argument. [/QUOTE]Although there are similarities as to when Reagan and Obama came into office, I think the differences are much more significant. Reagan came into office during a expansion and Obama during a recession according to NBER. High inflation and interest rates when Reagan came into office and the threat of deflation and low interest rates when Obama came into office.
Really it depends where you are sitting in the economy as to your economic standing right now. I was laid off in the Reagan era, worked temp jobs for 18 months before finding something permanent. I actually faced a marginal tax hike when going back to work because the Reagan tax reforms eliminated income averaging.
Being older my wealth is in the stock market now. S&P 500 as measured by GSPX was 835 when Obama took office and now sits over 1300. Obama's policies favor large business over small business. S&P 500 companies have increased hiring since Obama has been in office but most of the hiring has been overseas. As David Bianco of Merrill Lynch keeps reminding us the S&P 500 is not the American economy. I know many small business owners that have been hurt and have not recovered under Obama's policies
What did you think of Kudlow's proposal to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the budget?
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;417275]Although there are similarities as to when Reagan and Obama came into office, I think the differences are much more significant. Reagan came into office during a expansion and Obama during a recession according to NBER. High inflation and interest rates when Reagan came into office and the threat of deflation and low interest rates when Obama came into office.[/QUOTE]I don't mean to quibble too much, but here goes:
First, I agree that no recession or economic period is identical. I also agree that interest rates were high when Reagan took office, and low when Obama took office. But, if you asked most presidents which they would choose to have when they took office, my guess is most would go with low interest rates. They're not considered much of a problem and can be managed easier. I know, tell that to Japan. Also, I don't believe the "threat of deflation" was an issue when Obama took office. That supposed threat came later, and it's one of those phantom economist specters. There's always a threat of anything.
Second, as to expansion and contraction, there still isn't much difference. We may have been contracting when Obama took office, but that stopped a scant five months after he took office, according the the NBER.
[url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-recession-ended-june-2009-nber-says-2010-09-20[/url]
Reagan, on the other hand, dealt with a mini-Carter recession that ended in July of 1980, six months before he took office. But, things had been going to hell despite that technical end, which largely explains the results of that election and Carter's defeat after one term. You were alive during that time so I'm sure you can recall the gas lines, joblessness and high interest rates. As a consequence, six months after Reagan took office, another recession began in July of 1981. The expansion when Reagan took office lasted only six months. When Reagan killed the next recession, the expansion lasted a then-record 92 months.
That's the recession I'm talking about. Obama already has had longer to recover from the end of "his" recession but doesn't have the results to show for it. Of course, his term isn't up, so we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out in the end. Judging by the "start" of his expansion, though, it's not looking good.
Finally, the point in all this is not to say each period was / is the same. The point is that each period was seriously messed up. One President addressed it with supply side economics, while the current President turned to Keynesian principles. Again, there doesn't seem to be too much debate about what worked and what failed so far, unless your name is Paul Krugman. Even Krugman doesn't debate this so much as try to say that Keynesianism wasn't fully deployed. But, he has to say that. His life's work is meaningless if he doesn't. Indeed, Obama's latest Keynesian tactic was the payroll tax holiday, and it appears to have failed, as well.
[url]http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/05/09/another_nail_in_the_keynesian_coffin_99010.html[/url]
I definitely agree that Obama's strategy has been to court and coddle big business at the expense of small and mid sized companies. I have personally seen this. There is one set of rules and credits for the GEs and Too Big To Fail Banks, and there is another set of rules and punishments for the community banks and the rest of us left to deal with ObamaCare. The TBTFs contribute generously to Democrats and have been rewarded under his watch. It's very much like defense contractors and Cheney, except no one on the right is howling like the folks on the left did. I wish they would.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;417275]What did you think of Kudlow's proposal to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the budget?[/QUOTE]I tend to agree with him. These things can't happen over night. But, I would be in favor of a policy shift at this point toward getting the heck out of both places. Personally, I don't see it getting better in Afghanistan. This is the war Obama said we should be concentrating on. While I don't disagree, we've got our guy, and I don't think there's any more "objective" we can really achieve. If the goal is to defeat the Taliban or al Qaeda, that won't happen. They're ideologies, not nation states. Why stick around?
Regarding Iraq, I think the wind down has been going rather well. I'm not sure there's a need to accelerate that, so much as stay the previously outlined course to wind down. I do think that Obama and Biden owe an apology to Bush and Petraeus, especially after Obama voted against the surge and said we already had lost there. But, I'm not going to hold my breath for that apology.
I've said it here before and I'll say it again. I'm really not a critic of Obama's foreign policy. I think he's done a reasonable job there. It's his domestic policy that's a train wreck.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;417275]Being older my wealth is in the stock market now. S&P 500 as measured by GSPX was 835 when Obama took office and now sits over 1300. Obama's policies favor large business over small business. S&P 500 companies have increased hiring since Obama has been in office but most of the hiring has been overseas. As David Bianco of Merrill Lynch keeps reminding us the S&P 500 is not the American economy. I know many small business owners that have been hurt and have not recovered under Obama's policies [/quote]You are correct. Big companies have thrived with nearly free money (low interest) and pared headcount. Not too many of them are hiring despite very strong financial performance. I wonder why?
It is absolutely clear that Obama's policies are far better for the wealthy, indifferent for the poor and brutal on the middle class (19% un and underemployment).
[quote=]What did you think of Kudlow's proposal to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the budget?[/QUOTE]Let's turn plowshares into butter. Ain't going to happen unless Bohner and company grow a pair. They could bring them all home tomorrow and government expenditures wouldn't drop one penny. Look at the fiscal trend coming out of any past war.
We have build an economy that is based on cosumerism, and so when the pockets are near empty, then buisnesses suffers in general. Lean times, as they say. No choice, but to balance the budget somewhat and somehow. Not just the national budget, but each household, too. I think that everyone agrees on this, even Congress. So what's all the shouting and gesturing over there, and even here. Yeah, I got it, it's all about the agendas and the elections.
Big Buisness are reeling in big numbers, so do they want people to stop buying?
My recent fact finding mission to Medellin was fun and interesting, reminded me of Thailand about 14 years ago until consumerism came plowing through, and the land was never the same again. Colombia is repeating the same scenario. Sometimes, you don't know whether to laugh or cry.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;417250]Your post is a perfect example of why no one respects you here. You simply spout a bunch of mischief with no intention of supporting it, for obvious reasons. [/QUOTE]Another salvo from the king of personal attacks. I'm crushed.
You should know by now, I do my research and I'll support, clarify or withdraw anything I say, as the case may be. I welcome your continued debate, so I can expose your flimsy rebuttals, just like with the Fannie and Freddie discussion.
[QUOTE]So, I asked for support for something you claim "we all know," that the 'trade-off' to "wealth" accumulation by the rich is "increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class." [/QUOTE]The "we all know" part was about businesses existing to make a profit. Your string of quotes does not convey what I said.
[QUOTE]The best you can do is argue that the rich make more today than before in relation to others? Where's the unemployment "we all know" this has caused? Where's the poverty "we all know" this has caused? I'm not sure what "stagnating wealth" means, but if it means that the middle class is doing as well as it was before, then I don't think I disagree. But, that certainly doesn't support your Argument.[/QUOTE]More selective quoting. Please re-read what I said re: "we all know".
It appears you interpret my statement to mean the rich getting richer always has a causal link with poverty, unemployment and stagnating wealth. If so, your criticism is valid. They do not always occur together, and when they do, there is not always a causal link.
However my original statement was relative to today and the recent recession. And I said nothing about causality, only that there was a trade-off.
In recessions, unemployment and poverty increase while incomes stagnate (don't change much). The rich may take a hit too, but recover quicker. You recall I said before how corporations were sitting on $2 Trillion in cash, increasing dividends and buybacks while hiring little or none. This is little more than corporations and the rich elite that control them protecting and enhancing revenue streams back to the rich. Corporations could have chosen to invest in the economy and create jobs, or at least avoid layoffs and salary freezes. But instead many corporations, already profitable, chose to become even more profitable at the expense of workers. That's a trade-off.
The connection to unemployment is this: mass layoffs increased corporate profits, much of which is being distributed back to the rich through dividend hikes, buybacks and executive compensation. CEO pay now exceeds pre-recession levels, but unemployment is still high.
It ain't rocket science.
Now over the long run, let's take the past few decades, unemployment and poverty have basically stayed in narrow ranges of 5-10% and 10-15%. Adjusted for inflation, middle incomes have grown little. Your data supports this. But upper incomes have had huge gains. Pointing this out is not "class envy", just a statement of fact.
Remember the conservative talking point: when we grow the pie and allow the rich to prosper, it trickles down to others. But you've just acknowledged this isn't the case (or barely). Even as the pie grows, the wealthy are taking an ever-growing share of it. The more wealth is shifted up, the less remains for those below. That's a trade-off.
The CBPP link I referenced uses data from the CBO. Just as valid as your Census Bureau data. I guess it's easier to call it "bogus" than admit it supports my argument.
You cited an increase in median household income from $47,251 in 1988 to $49,777 in 2009 (+5%) as a sign of improvement. How about the 1989 to 2009 comparison: $48,463 to $49,777 (+2.7%). Or 1999 to 2009: $52,587 to $49,777 (-5.3%). Long-term, yes the overall trend is slightly positive, though the slope declined under Bush. If you want to call these meager gains as proof that incomes do not stagnate long-term, very well. But median gains are dwarfed by those of the top quintile and top 1 percent. Refer back to the CBPP article.
Liberals don't object to the wealthy having the biggest piece of the pie. What they object to is the trend of the [i]ever-increasing share of the pie[/i] the wealthy hold.