Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You're right. Some of them do. But more importantly, the vast majority of them reap substantial rewards for their hard work. We aren't all rich though. The socialists have made sure of that.
    Really? Vast majority reap substantial rewards? Where have you been? The data clearly shows that wealth is concentrated at the top and the middle class has been shrinking over many years while the working poor continues to grow. No, we aren't all rich but it isn't the fault of some imaginary socialists. Lets look at corporate welfare (current banking crisis a great example) over the years and we will find the real villians!!
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by teach1love View Post
    Really? Vast majority reap substantial rewards? Where have you been? The data clearly shows that wealth is concentrated at the top and the middle class has been shrinking over many years while the working poor continues to grow. No, we aren't all rich but it isn't the fault of some imaginary socialists. Lets look at corporate welfare (current banking crisis a great example) over the years and we will find the real villians!!
    You're way off base and apparently missed my point. I was comparing the "poor" here with the poor in other countries.

    Maybe you should look to Greece and the EU and review what impacts the EU transition and public unions have had on that country. Spain and Italy are right behind them, and you'll be hearing about riots there too, soon I expect. Wonderful socialism at work.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #23  
    Actually, my point is right on in terms of economic disparities in this country; objective economic data backs my point. As far as missing your point, you may try to make it with a little more specificity, as you mentioned nothing about other countries' economic systems...
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by teach1love View Post
    Really? Vast majority reap substantial rewards? Where have you been? The data clearly shows that wealth is concentrated at the top and the middle class has been shrinking over many years while the working poor continues to grow. No, we aren't all rich but it isn't the fault of some imaginary socialists. Lets look at corporate welfare (current banking crisis a great example) over the years and we will find the real villians!!



    Table 3: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.
    Bottom 99 percent Top 1 percent
    1922 63.3% 36.7%
    1929 55.8% 44.2%
    1933 66.7% 33.3%
    1939 63.6% 36.4%
    1945 70.2% 29.8%
    1949 72.9% 27.1%
    1953 68.8% 31.2%
    1962 68.2% 31.8%
    1965 65.6% 34.4%
    1969 68.9% 31.1%
    1972 70.9% 29.1%
    1976 80.1% 19.9%
    1979 79.5% 20.5%
    1981 75.2% 24.8%
    1983 69.1% 30.9%
    1986 68.1% 31.9%
    1989 64.3% 35.7%
    1992 62.8% 37.2%
    1995 61.5% 38.5%
    1998 61.9% 38.1%
    2001 66.6% 33.4%
    2004 65.7% 34.3%
    2007 65.4% 34.6%
    Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996). 1992-2007 data from Wolff (2010).

    Financial Wealth
    Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
    1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
    1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
    1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
    1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
    1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
    2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
    2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
    2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%
  5. #25  
    Obama uses Palm Pre and Zumo Drive to upload his suckiness. Claiming he no longer sucks.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Oh c'mon guys, it's so simple, maybe you need a refresher course. It's all ball bearings these days.---Fletch
  6. #26  
    exactly... 93% of the nations financial wealth owned by the top 20% of the population.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post



    Table 3: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.
    Bottom 99 percent Top 1 percent
    1922 63.3% 36.7%
    1929 55.8% 44.2%
    1933 66.7% 33.3%
    1939 63.6% 36.4%
    1945 70.2% 29.8%
    1949 72.9% 27.1%
    1953 68.8% 31.2%
    1962 68.2% 31.8%
    1965 65.6% 34.4%
    1969 68.9% 31.1%
    1972 70.9% 29.1%
    1976 80.1% 19.9%
    1979 79.5% 20.5%
    1981 75.2% 24.8%
    1983 69.1% 30.9%
    1986 68.1% 31.9%
    1989 64.3% 35.7%
    1992 62.8% 37.2%
    1995 61.5% 38.5%
    1998 61.9% 38.1%
    2001 66.6% 33.4%
    2004 65.7% 34.3%
    2007 65.4% 34.6%
    Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996). 1992-2007 data from Wolff (2010).

    Financial Wealth
    Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
    1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
    1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
    1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
    1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
    1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
    2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
    2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
    2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%
    i would suggest the middle should be much higher,,
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by teach1love View Post
    exactly... 93% of the nations financial wealth owned by the top 20% of the population.
    My point was more that the numbers haven't really changed that much over the last Century.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    i would suggest the middle should be much higher,,
    Of course you would! I would suggest that we all look at our standard of living at all points of that chart, and give thanks that we're not living in some dusty hut in Mozambique.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #30  
    It maybe a urban myth but its still holds some elements of truth to it. Maggie said it best..."They’ve got the usual Socialist disease — they’ve run out of other people’s money"

    I'm all for responsible government assistance to the most needy in the country but there has to be some balance. If we have to have a progressive tax system, then everyone should have to contribute something even someone earning $16,000. We may need tax rates to go up across the board, along with significant spending cuts to get ourselves out of the current mess we're in but everyone should contribute or else our society will become even more stratified.
    Last edited by solarus; 05/06/2010 at 04:16 PM.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions