This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Chart Of The Day: Americans At Or Below 125% Of The Poverty Level
From AP: "the number of Americans with incomes at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty level - the income limit for qualifying for legal aid - is expected to reach an all-time high of 66 million this year. A family of four earning 125 percent of the federal poverty level makes about $28,800 a year, government figures show." And visually...
As usual, if anyone expects these 66 million Americans (over 20% of the US population) to vote for someone who dares to even think about taking away any of the entitlements said tens of millions of people are used to, then by all means buy Las Vegas real estate.
»
- 25624 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
another bullish chart bro?
Am I the only one who sees purple cows?
MOOOOOOOOOO!
I see unicorns.
...and rainbows.
Shit one, I guess we all dont give a fuck till it hits us personally.
When we are eating dog food we will start to take action.
By that time it'll probably be too late.
Time for a drink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02yf6RHIQjQ
This is what we need, some nice music
Aristotle: At a certain point, money is meaningless. It ceases to be the goal. It is the game what counts.
Whatever, I have a good paying job with solid prospects, work hard, etc. But I don't have an iPhone or even A/C at home.
Most of these "poor" people have both iPhones and A/C however, so they're not really poor...
Both you and the main post are being dumb. Have you heard it said that "the middle class is being destroyed"? It's said on ZH at least three times a day, and everyone says yup, amen. Where do you think those former middle class people are going? Are they being vaporized?
No, of course not. They are landing in the chart above, shifting from middle class to poor. (Where else?) Most of the increase are people who formerly had middle class jobs, and now have Mitt Romney jobs like working as clerks at staples for $8-something an hour. Or families who formerly held on to the lower rung of the middle class by having two incomes, but now one of them is terminally unemployed. Very few of them have iPhones, and most (of the new dwellers in that chart) don't have long histories of entitlement dependence. They all have A/C, but can't pay the electric bill, and buy food, and make rent, and get the kid's aching tooth pulled all at in the same month.
They are the former middle class. How hard is that?
Irony is, many will vote for Romney thinking he will get them back in the middle class. Mitt, who is so proud of all the jobs he creted at Staples. Maybe he will double the pay of Staples clerks. Ya think?
Except you're forgetting that these people become ELIGIBLE FOR AID at this level at below, meaning that Zimbabwe Ben's printed dough goes straight into their pockets. They really are Welfare Queens, it's not a myth of Reaganism. They really do have iPhones and HDTVs and xBoxes and cars and cable and whatever the hell they want from Uncle Sugar.
My wife and I are the middle class. We haven't lost our jobs (yet). Make 6 figures (barely) gross. Pay almost 40% of our take-home in rent. We have two TVs in the house, an 18 year old JVC 32" tube, and a 25 year old 11" tv/vcr combo. My cell phone is provided by work, my wifes is an antique LG that used to take crappy pictures before the camera stopped working. Camcorder bought used on ebay. No video games in this house. Our iPad was won at a company party. One car bought in '09 and one motorcycle bought in '97.
We work our asses off, have essentially no disposable income, credit card debt that we can't seem to pay down, practically no electronic toys, scared that our 401k's will be corzined.
Kugman and Bernanke like to claim that printing stimulates the economy, which of course it does not. Krugman/Bernanke haters like to claim that printing is zero sum and therefore dumb and useless, but it's not that either. Printing is transfer of wealth towards those who benefit from the printing, and out of the pockets (by means of dilution) of those who don't collect federal checks. Beneficiaries of the printing include banksters, military industrial complex, baby boomers, junkies, dropouts, illegals--everybody BUT the middle class. The middle class has no solidarity with handout recipients; socialism for the poor is just as insane and wrongful as socialism for the rich.
Ron Paul is our only hope. He will hack away at federal spending and end the printing because they are NOT THE PROPER ROLE of the federal government. Doesn't matter the impact, doesn't matter the affordability. When something's wrong you're supposed to quit doing it no matter how popular it is.
AD- troll much?
American are god damn stupid.....living on poverty level and still voting....
poverty level living standards requires hard actions.
Americans = loud mouth, fat girth, big truck and guns but no balls
"Americans = loud mouth, fat girth, big truck and guns but no balls"
And you are what...where exactly do you sleep at night?
I'm what the elites call "UNAMERICAN" for having values that oppose current corrupt regime.
Heck, they may go all stalin on me and call me a terrorist to be put in labor camps.
No, I asked you where you slept at night. I'm a little sick and tired of AnAnus types sticking their nose up my ass.
Where do you live...what country?
in your mama's bed.
I'm pretty sure his mother is a semi-colon, and his father is a parenthesis.
Did you want to defend this idiot inciting violence from afar here or are you more enamored with my style of expression?
Wanker
Oh my, I'm crushed.
go self-immolate yourself.
pentagon, whitehouse, wall st. Koch brother's house, take your pick.
ROTFL!!!
So now we're getting down to it...you don't want everyone to die for your cause, including yourself, in a distant un-named country...just me.
How refreshing ;-)
I have no cause except use defense for defense not imperialism....usually it backfires on generations down the road.
Iran is an old persian empire....borders change, but people who live there live there and more wars breed more sons who will seek revenge.
killing in the name of......
Not taking sides. Simply enamored with your style of expression.
;-)
Ayan Rand lived on social security you idiots.
Tea party fuckers are the worst socialist hypocrits living on government welfare.
You're certainly not going to see me defending Ayn Rand or anyone who worships at her altar of obselfishism.
What's with all the labels? Did someone strike a nerve with you?
Ayan Rand?...Tea Party?...socialists?
Glad you got Big Daddy's American Balls out of your throat before you choked on em...lol.
Ayn Rand was also taxed throughout her life.
Now, if you knew a little bit more about Rand and called her a hypocrite based upon her philosophy and the odd behavior of the Ayn Rand cult, well, you'd likely get more traction.
Disclosure: I liked Rand's stories, but her philosophy is shit.
So, your not going to answer a simple question?
Sounds like you're choking on Daddy's Big American Balls in mama's bed bozo...and he's not very impressed.
AL, that kind of shit is uncalled for.
Seriously, what's with the internet tough guy approach?
Agreed. Time to treat like Robotarder, MDB, etc: See post, downvote, scroll down. Don't Read.
Haven't seen the tarder for awhile. How refreshing. It's hard enough trying to decipher most of the posts here as it is, without people (or TROLLS) PURPOSELY trying to hijack the thread or spew idiotic bullshit. (I've been guilty, I know).
AldousGore is one of those boils that just can't get comfortable until he squeezes some pus out on someone.
Well, I hope he's happy, whatever country he's in, with my big American balls slapping him in the chin.
I know I am ;-)
Oh, you are a Marine!
every nation is intelligent, until it isnt. You were smart, until you werent. Gimp boy
American poverty is in a class by itself ! Remember, the welfare check is just walking around money .... all of life's necessities are covered separately !
One more time for those who missed this
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html
Doin a heckuva job Brownie.
Welcome to the machine. Americans sold their liberty for the illusion of security and now have neither. Drool-stained debt slaves walking around in a haze of ignorance and complacency. Can't spell apathetic without pathetic.
End the Fed. End the State.
Of course it did. You don't believe that shit that Obama is a liberal marxist who gives a rat's ass about anyone but the oligarchs, do you? Makes for good radio, though.
"You don't believe that shit that Obama is a liberal marxist who gives a rat's ass about anyone but the oligarchs, do you?"
And yet you voted for him.
I did indeed. I was fooled (or at least I let myself believe there was a chance that he was for real on his promises of rolling back the Patriot Act and other police state apparatus which has only gotten worse under his Presidency), which is one of the reasons I now spend too many hours on ZH trying to unfool others.
I was at a birthday party Friday for a friends kid. The parents (all between 32-38) were sitting around. The election came up. About 17 out of 20 of us admitted to voting for Obama and getting fooled. I was in the 3 that did not vote. I was amazed by how many people got duped, and admitted it.
After 8 years of Bush and Cheney turning the country into a giant surveillance state, I would have voted for anyone who claimed to be against it. McCain didn't even pretend that he was against it, so it was a no-brainer to take a flier on the O. I thought maybe he slipped through the cracks of the machine and that they really wanted Hillary, but in fact he merely proves that the machine is pretty damn efficient. I expect I will never vote Democrat or Republican (I've cast for both) again. Ever.
P.S. It is encouraging that many of your friends realize they were fooled. That's something.
Where exactly were you in the previous 20 years while the foundations for Bush II were being laid???
Living comfortably in the Matrix eating my steak. But I did vote for Perot so I've got that going for me.
I give extra credit for honesty, we'll need it going forward ;-)
This was a pretty diverse group too. Teachers, a few bankers even. The key here is not that they probably won't vote this time. It's that they are all making a living. Bring up the economy and they shrug their shoulders. Bring up the dollar and they roll their eyes. Bring up the debt and they wave their hand in the air and walk away.
We have a long way to go.
One of them went to a "college advisor" who told them they need to save 217k for their 2 yr old so they can pay for a SUNY school. They did not fall over in laughter. They are really going to try to save it.
I've had simliar discussions...all middle class...they used to look at me like I was insane when I said save in G&S and spend in fiat.
Now, not so much...no matter who is elected. Its just prudent.
I don't know how they're ever gonna get the peoples trust back...and honestly, after all thats transpired, I don't care if they ever do.
It would be healthier for all.
because americans are stupid...like kids....all that TV made them too naive.
"Austerity? oh that sounds depressing. I don't want to hear about it. BTW, why is my college tuition rising above inflation while I can't get a job?"
Like kids told not to touch the hot stove. They touch it, get burned, and then learn the lesson the hard way.
stupid people = learn lessons eventually but the hard way
smart people = get the fuck out of dodge before shit hits the fan.
I voted 3rd party, like I always do. Obama didn't fool me, but I hoped I was wrong.
McCain certainly didn't inspire confidence. Romney doesn't either.
At least I could say that I voted for someone I like, even if there are too many sheeple that vote for someone they don't like and thus doom us all for the "lesser evil" that seems to get worse every election.
I no longer believe it matters who is elected from the current two party system. I will be writing in Ron Paul (the only rational choice even though I disagree with him on some major issues). I am hoping that as things become worse and information becomes more available, people will start to wake up in real numbers and eventually the Red/Blue paradigm will fall and that viable candidates willing to challenge the status quo will emerge. There is already some hope that this is occurring given that Paul received support from a meaningful percentage of the population across traditional party lines.
" I no longer believe it matters who is elected from the current two party system." - agree, 100%
I have to disagree. The GOP-e types love to tell people that a vote for Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, whoever, is a vote for Obama. I think that the election dynamics have changed such that any such vote can be said actually to be a vote for Romney.
The best we can hope for out of the upcoming election is for Obama (or any non Republican [which means - let's face it - Obama]) with a strongly Republican Congress (which appears extremely likely at this point), with maybe even a true conservative influence (which also appears possible).
No. It won't bring about the changes needed. But it will slow down or maybe even stop their agenda for a while.
Seriously? Do we want to give the GOP-e unchallenged control of the federal government with somebody like Romney at the head? What could be worse? It would be the fourth term of GWB's presidency.
fuck GOP and their Mormon, Inc. private equity extract cash out of companies and fire everyone fucker Romney.
vote whomever you want to . write your own name on the ballot. I'd vote for zerohedge readers over any of the candidates from either parties.
Dude, with your outlook, you're not going to unfool anyone here.
A better approach for you would be to absorb as much material here as possible.
Your posts have been getting better, but you're still a B- troll in my book.
Right, if I don't agree with you on every point I'm a troll. You are the one that should absorb and learn, and I'm sure my telling you that has convinced you.
No, I'm not saying you need to agree with me on everything, just that you don't fully grasp the content of this site yet. And I'm not sure you want to grasp it....hence the troll grade.
Good luck and happy learning.
One of the great thinkers from over a century ago said it so beauitfully;
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
- Frederick Bastiat
Almost $30,000 is 125% of poverty level???
I think we've found the problem.
LOL. Yeah 30K is great if you don't expect a roof over your head (property ponzi), or a retirement income (share ponzi), or medical care (medicare ponzi), or your children to have education (university ponzi).
These things used to be affordable before they were ponzified as a scheme to transfer wealth to the 1%. The rise in cost of these things has zero to do with free market outcomes.
Why are there families of 4 making that kind of money? Simple answer: don't have kids if you are making minimum wage. Why do people think it is their god given right to have kids when they can't afford them???
Answer: bigger handout from Uncle Sam
Because contrary to the dollar being the rule of the land, humans were put on Earth to reproduce. It's factual science. But, you can keep on worshipping a dollar's value which is manipulated by evil, fat and bald men.
reproduce? say when....5 billion, 6 billion, 7 billion. Mission accomplished. Now try feeding the masses sans fiat, cheap oil or non-production production.
Since we agree the dollar is manipulated can we not agree that has led to a population level not naturally supportable?
humans were not "put on" the earth, despite your superstitious inclinations.
and, it is only your opinion that the purpose of peoples' existence is to reproduce.
that's a bizzarely crude view of human existence.
there's already 7 billion people on the earth, adding more people is just redundant, there is no good reason to do it, other than your pre-programmed inclinations.
i know you want to think that you're a unique and beautiful snowflake - but you're not! you're just another copy of a copy of a copy of 7 billion nearly identical organisms. having another one of you is redundant and unneccessary.
The number one job of every species is to reproduce. Whether you belive in a religion or not, it's a fact, unless you think that you are different from other animals.
Reproduce all you want, if you can afford it. But don't tell me I have to babysit your brats either directly or indirectly through taxes or subsidy.
Yes - SPECIES, not necessarily each individual therein. Humans have succeeded in their species' reproduction by the numbers. But part of a species reproduction is the culling of the weak and the slow whose genetics are determined by nature to be sub-optimal. Maintaining the integrity of the species goes hand in hand with the job of breeding.
Humans are different because of compassion. We just can't agree on what true compassion is.
And that was my point! Hey, I too think we could do without 5 billion of these morons fucking up our planet. But, to allow entitled rich people who know how to game making fiat money the ultimate priveledge of exclusive reproductivity, then you can explain to your offspring why he is enslaved by Corzine jr.. If it wasn't fact, sex would be like watching paint dry.
....and what, pray tell, would you call your last two paragraphs if reproduction is a "bizarrely crude" view of human existence?
Cripes, get outside & go for a walk, read good literature, anything....life aint too bad, all things considered.
Sorry bro. You can't have all the kids you want if you can't afford them.
Beam, do you have children?
Yes, I have two. Because that's all I can afford to take care of both by time and by finance. Even if I wanted to have ten, I couldn't afford to. Two is plenty, trust me.
They're called anchor babies. Just have a baby in the U.S, and he or she is an automatic citizen. And the courts will never split up the families which means Jose can stay in the U.S. and continue to mow your lawn.
Hey! That's me, that's MY chart!
Fun-employment!!!
////////////////////
For my anonymous wimp junker...what happened in 2006?
how else will Gold go higher?
...that is the quote of this generation. LMAO, good one. It sounded like something Greenspan used to say about the need for some amount of unemployment. LMAO. I was wondering where that fish smell keeps coming from. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn73Wtem0No&playnext=1&list=PL38693F85F9CD8BF1&feature=results_video
I dated this broad in college that people used to say something like that about.
And J.P. Morgan Chase will make a killing administering the debit cards as will WalMart selling EBT food.
Bifurcation into Lords/Ladies and the Peasantry; middle class being destroyed.
That little dip in the middle is "wealth effect" from the free money housing bubble. When that crashed... the rate of climb increased.
Laws of physics bitchez, you don't get something for nothing... what is that... Newton's fourth law of thermodynamics?
Something or other relating to Paul Krugman.
Googled voter turnout by income level. This chart shows that in 2008 the participation rate for people under $30k varied from 41% at the low end to 48% at the $29.9k level. The national average was 59.7%.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voter_Turnout_by_Income,_2008_US_...
We can assume that not all of the 66 million people are of voting age. Using the hypothetical of a family of four, we'd assume only two are voting age adults. So, an increase of ~13.5 million people below 125% of the poverty line since 2008 would add 6.75 million potential voters, of whom we'd expect 3 million (assuming a generous 45% participation rate) to actually vote.
About 125 million votes were cast in 2008, so this change equates to 2.4% of the popular vote.
Everybody knows that po folk don't vote nohow. No problem!
What has been forgotten is that the original "electorate" was white, land-owning, males.
All men are created equal, so that would have left out the ones that were 3/5ths of a person.
I guess the concept that in a Democracy people vote their pocketbook is actually a factoid.
We didn't have a Democracy in the original concept... that was a later development.
Interesting that you mention this. If I'm not mistaken the 3/5th Compromise was actually instituted by northern, non-slave, states to hold on to their superior number of electoral votes over the slave-states in the south.
You're exactly right.
Whiteness excluded, I'm in favor of changing voting laws so that only property owning, non-government employees can vote. It makes sense to me that those who stand to lose the most should be the ones allowed to vote....but I'm likely overlooking something.
I don't vote, but I think the above would improve the present system.
It definitely would go a long ways towards putting some adults in charge of the public purse. But I propose one tweak: replace "property owning" with "income tax paying" non-government employees . . . "
The problem is your analysis assumes that the middle class productive people all vote one way. They do not. If you take those in the welfare class and add them to unions, high numbers of social security recipients, stupid leftists college students, their professors, lifelong democrats, minorities, etc., you get a large powerful coalition of people who want other people's stuff. Some, like farmers are bought off by both sides, but they still want "stuff" from government.
this is a good examples of how figures lie...
this is not very useful because I don't believe it is income-level-adjusted. The 41%-48% figure that is. (similar to age-adjusted reporting).
meaning that 41% of 66000000 is 27,060,000 and 48% of 66 Mil is 31,680,000
So out of the 125% poverty group, we can expect between 27 to 31.6 million voters. how does that compare to the other voter turnout by income groups?
The 27 to 31.6 million voters is a huge block that can swing an election EASILY. thankfully, or not, depending on how you see it, we have an electoral college system, so the popular vote is irrelevant.
HOWEVER, I bet you these 27 - 31.6 milon voters are from states that must be won to get the presidency. Montana, SD, ND, ID etc... don't matter... in these smaller states, all 100% of the 125% poverty line could vote and it would not make a difference, NY, CA, FL, OH, PA, IL on the other hand MATTERS.
anyway, enough ranting, you get the point about figures being misleading unless they are properly adjusted (statistically speaking).
All is well...carry on or you may be arrested....
just over 20%? To have an American Hitler in power, more than 60% is what the doctor ordered.
At least Hitler cared about the people and had actual solutions to the dire economic circumstances and rampant unemployment. Within two years full employment was restored with high wage, high productive, goods producing jobs. Where is Obama with an economic program to return the United States to full employment? Where is Paul Ryan and Romney? These people have no soul and our bought & paid for by monied interests that thrive at the expense of a low wage, high unemployment, service sector US economy.
Uuuhhhh, did you research exactly how Herr Schickelgruber (and rumored Rothschild bastard progeny) actually performed that little economic miracle?
I'm gonna say no...but you already knew that.
She obviously didn't.
Boy the way Hans Pfitzner played
Strauss music like Hitler said.
Guys like us we had it made,
Those were the days.
And you knew who you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man
Like Adolf Hitler again.
Didn't need no Rotfront state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old Steyr sure ran great.
Those were the days.
"Within two years full employment was restored with high wage, high productive, goods producing jobs." All part of the build up to the most destructive conflagration in human history which ended with the utter and complete destruction of Germany. It's all about context, and you seem to be lacking it.
I didn't know anyone actually believed Hitler was sincerely racist, Aryan-supremacist, national-socialist, or any of that crap. He was a useful puppet whose real motivation was lust for power and glory, like all politicians. His career was steeped in Wagnerian imagery and populist rhetoric because that is what sold best in 1930s Germany.
Channeling Dick Martin - "I didn't know that!".
As I recall in my history lessons he really cared a lot about Jewish people, too followed by slavs, arabs, etc. He had solutions for them, too. You have to be care-ful about this caring thing and what comes with it.
I like liberty, caring most about yourself and not trying to rule your neighbor with force. This government caring thing comes with central planning and big solutions with teeth.
Quite frankly, I find this statistic not much help. However, the number of Americans dependent on government is much more enlightening as it shows how many people are bought. I beleive that statisistic to be just below 50% so I am not so sure Romney will win. But I think both are losers anyway. Its either a bullet train or a steam train to the same destination.
The bottom 85% of the US makes less than the average citizen of Slovakia. For the proles, communism or corporate fascism has the same result.
Interesting statistic. I doubt the bottom 65% of the US can even find Slovakia on a map, but I'm being to insensitive now. I will say, I find little distinction between corporate fascism and fascism of any other kind. As a serf, I care not, only that someone up there is pissing me off.
I think you mean "is pissing on me"
Trickle down economics
Da druben...
Interesting "fact" that you pull out of your ass. Show the numbers with data to prove it. Also, don't count those on welfare. We're only talking about people who work. Per Capital income of Slovakia is $17,000. We don't need lies to prove the economy is shitty
I believe it was pulled out of CHS's ass.
@ duo; WOW:
"The bottom 85% of the US makes less than the average citizen of Slovakia. For the proles, communism or corporate fascism has the same result."
Have to call pure bullshit on that one! The average wage (currently as of August 14, 2012- latest numbers available) is roughly $28k/yr for males and $19k/yr for females.
(source: http://www.payscale.com/research/SK/Country=Slovakia_(Slovak_Republic)/Salary#by_Gender)
Show me where you come up with the bottom 85% of the US earning less than $23.5K/yr. I earn considerably more than that and I seriously doubt I'm in the top 15% (or even close to it). Try a new concept: use factual info rather than numbers made up to suit emotions at the time of posting.
We're all dependent on the Government. Except maybe Amish people.
If you shop at the grocery store, the government is feeding you. Period. USDA, DOT, DOE, FDA, FDR's dams, -All make sure you get fed. Poorly you may argue, but how it could be done better, by the government, is the right argument, not the dogma that government should get out of giving us guidance for our food production and dietary choices.
Whether with an EBT or a VISA or Mastercard, contrast your dependence on the boxed foods from the nutrition industrial complex with growing and preserving your own food!
Most people don't realize what their true best interests are. How they'll vote, or whether they will vote is going to follow from the super pac commercials. It's a Ryan sound bite vs Obama sound bite battle now.
*Audible sigh* *Eyes roll back into head* I see MDB has a new alternate.
I hope you're joking, otherwise, you're an idiot. The government does not feed anybody. It takes taxes from people, then creates programs to make people dependent. Then idiots claim that the world will end if not for the government.
these jokes are not funny. even mdb jokes are not funny (gasp). even for the people who 'get' them.
people should be responsible for their own food supply and the 'contained within government' dialectic is false.
next please.
Amerikans are too fucking stupid to vote.There fixed it
'Voting is for old people'
That's so 2004, in 2012 the new motto is "Voting is for rich white guy."
Its because the rich have all the money. Time for a revolution folks. Tax the rich like back in the good old days (the 1950's) when times were actually good.
Time to bring the 1% a little closer to the rest of us ... cause what we have right now isn't working and is downright WRONG.
Ropes and tall trees will and can fix issues.
The reason times were good in the 1950's was because we had the strongest manufacturing base in the world. Scratch that, we had the only functioning manufacturing base in the world in the post WWII period due to the fact that our factories weren't bombed out like the rest of the developed world.
As for taxes, if we confiscated 100% of the wealth of the 1% it wouldn't even cover our deficit. So let's assume we take all of their wealth away and use it to fund all these welfare progams. How do we pay the 16 trillion in debt we are in and the future deficits? Don't forget, there are no more 1%ers to tax as we have already confiscated all of their wealth. I'm being nice, I haven't even brought up unfunded liabilities (future government 'promises') which is in the order of $120 TRILLION dollars, where is that money going to come from?
Problem isn't that the rich aren't taxed enough, it's that government spending and regulation is out of control.
And for the record, the evil rich people who own the corporations don't pay taxes. They either raise the price of the products they produce (and the consumer pays) or they lay off people (and outsource the jobs to other countries). Here is just one example http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/papa-johns-john-schnatter-obamacare-...
Who is John Galt?
Take the top 400's wealth...all of it...and run the whole shabang for 4-6 months tops...then maybe the OWS crowd will finally be happy and "feel good".
Thats how deep a fucking hole the government is in...so deep, 200k is the "new rich"...lol.
I'm John Galt and I approve this message.
Some people refuse to look reason in the face and Tyler hits the nail on the head:
A Scottish philospher Alexander Tytler hits the same point:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage "
So they had DIEBOLD machines 200 years ago?
de Tocqueville said much the same thing.
The funny thing is many here weren't complacent, we have tried to warn the damned unicorn riders for decades. Now, they seem to prefer bondage and "free" condoms to liberty.
I'm almost to the point of saying good riddance, let their masters have them.
Interesting view on the 50ths,agree Europe was bombed to pieces,and got, The Marshall help!
Greew up in the 50th,and remember how poor we were!
Why assume to take the wealth,are we not all a part of that wealth,i se it as ours?
They didnt get rich,without us?
We,all of us,are the Base they build thier fortune on,by not paying us enogh,goes for Us as for Europe!
And would it not be better for everyone,the planet in general,if noone were rich,but everyone had a dissent life:I for sure would advocate that!!
What good does it do,to ave a factory,if no one,want to work there.then i would say ike Obama:They didnt build?This Car,Ship House,Office,School,ect!
I dont care if Obama said, you didnt build that,cause i build it,due to who i am,The Bricklayer!
I build and i payed,not, in Us but where i was born ,Denmark and i dont sleep there, anymore,and i realy dont se any differense.
And they, outsourched without asking anybody,even though people builded thier wealth,what is that for a, Thank you,attitude!
I think i,ve said it before,i know that Us holds as many good people as anywhere else on this planet,but people dont weigh you for that,cause some thing else sticks out infront of The People,il just mension one:The A-Man,he is more know than the most other things,no i know that MI6 does the same,but they aint so known.
Karsten Hansen.Now a days located south of US.
Did i forget to tell??
I liked Ted Nugents music,ever since The Amboy Dukes.Oh, and i loved The West Coast Popart Experimental Band to,namely,A child of a few Hours,chilly!
What he stands for Politicaly,i dont like!
"I liked Ted Nugents music...What he stands for Politicaly,i dont like!"
Yeah, I gathered that from your preceding...and I do appreciate someone with broken English trying to communicate their thoughts...you'll never get a cut from me for trying, I would expect the same if the roles were reversed.
The answer to you're broader question is an emphatic no.
Because someone invested their time, their saved capital (risked their labor savings & time is what it is) to start a business, in order for you to be hired, be employed, does not entitle you to anything but the wage paid. If he/she gives other benefits its all good.
Now you, as a brick layer, have the opportunity to save some of your own earnings (your capital, your savings) to place at risk to go into competition (requires time) against your former employer...if you wish.
Or you can stay where you're at...working for someone else...opportunity does not guarantee success but its better than a level playing field of mediocrity.
Or you could could hope to hit the government run lottery and have almost half taken away from you instantly because the state has decided thats fair ;-)
We had a manufacturing base and 5 even more important things:
1) Bretton Woods, world reserve currency BITCHEZ
2) GOLD BITCHEZ
3) Cheap oil and plenty of it, CRUDE BITCHEZ
4) Captive export markets, mercantilism BITCHEZ
5) The biggest or 2nd biggest military on earth, superpower BITCHEZ
While America's midcentury prosperity explosion was no accident, it was also not the result of American Exceptionalism or some other fairy-tale BS. It was good luck on a scale never before imagined combined with lots of nudges and prods by the Anglo-American "money power" going back at least 2 centuries.
I'm not saying businesses didn't produce valuable goods and services or people were not productive, I'm saying that they were able to was the result of factors totally beyond their control. It was a right place, right time kinda thing.
The manufacturing base thrived in this environment, but then again I'd venture that nothing short of Stalinism or Maoism could have prevented the market from fully exploiting such auspicious circumstances.
If we had taxed the 1% before compounded interest became rampant we would not have been in this hole to begin with. Now it is too late. We should have implemented the necessary taxation back in 1980.
The problem with this line of thinking is this "Would you be upset if you became suddenly rich by whatever legal means?" Then all of the sudden you'd become the enemy. The fact is the rich isn't the enemy.
To make my point, how many of you would turn down a winning multi million dollar lottery ticket?
Blaming the rich is buying the MSM crap. Individual freedom and the right to pursue a life that improves or betters oneself has always been the answer.
Now if you tell me that the rich are impeding that right, then I am on your side. That is something the rich shouldn't do and that may be the case these days, sadly. The government and big business in bed together and hampering your right to have a better life and that is wrong. By the way, the disparaty between the top wealthiest to the rest of the nation was greater in 1929.
I'm Barack 0bama and I approve of this message.
Why not tax the rich like back in the good old days of the 1920's? It was around 2% and the economy was booming and there was no deficit.
Do the rich have all the money? Or just paper promises from debtors whose ability to pay is questionable, huge debt themselves, intangible assets that need constant inflation to maintain value, that if sold off en mass would completely collapse markets, etc.? The real wealth pyramid has land and agriculture at its base, then manufacturing, then technology and innovation, energy, and lastly a bit of finance at the top to keep the economy lubed. What we have now is an inverted pyramid, when scored by Dollars, the most value being in finance and among the least valuable is agriculture. It is a debt-perpetuating, inflation-ravaged illusion incapable of ballance, and if the whole banking system came crashing down would right itself overnight.
Bottom is in, therefore, bullish!
In 1980 $28,000 was a good salary. Whose fault is it that this salary has lost its purchasing power? Nixon and the FED.
But FDR removed the "real" link to gold by making it illegal to own, Nixon just destroyed the mirage....
I blame Hamilton.
Whose fault is it? Woodrow Wilson (and pretty much every president and congressman who followed) and the Fed, or if you prefer, the Fed.
There, fixed it for ya!
Americans or "residents"?
Not nice reading. But its income poverty only - a single measure
If you looked over mulitiple dimensions of deprivation - well, i dread to think
US has likely reached that advanced stage of capitalism Lenin/Marx were banking on...
(pun intended)
How can we reach a stage of something we never had? Good ol' Marxists tilting at windmills (and strawmen) again.
Lenin/Marxism socialist economies didn't fare too well either. Take a looksie at Cuba and North Korea and the failed USSR and Warsaw Pact countries.
Now how can I make money off this trend?
The best way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it back in your pocket.
If you did that in 1913, you would have 7 cents now.
Edit: make that 3.5 cents.
Same goes for politicians except that they fold [themselves] over & [take it] in their back pocket...
I think I'd say they bend us over so we can take it in the "back pocket".
everybody takes it in the back pocket from somebody else... Only difference is which part of the food chain you exist...
Event horizon
Bring on the Qe for SNAPS program! /sarc
Helicopter Ben has got himself in a bit of " twist" right now. How could I have forgotten the "drought"? " How ,"high fructose" of me<>!
Remember Yen, some farmers in locations outside OK etc., are doing very well with their corn harvests. Very well indeed.
Ben need not feel too compelled as far as I am concerned to come running with his form of assistance.
Nothing like free markets eh?
I wish you all the best! I respect your hard work!
You did it yourselves! Keep a "keen eye" open for the DRONES! ;-)
How dare they expect any sort of safety net. Too bad if they aren't the lucky 44% who have insurance through their employers, because $12,000 of that $28,800 will go towards health insurance. Forget about housing. Even a double wide will cost you most of the rest of your earnings, and better start saving for food, since the next budget may be taking away your food stamps. You don't need a cell phone or internet, you really can't afford it. Just visit the library if you need to go online. Hopefully, you'll live close to one, since you obviously can't afford a car or insurance. Its a wonderful life.
Why should I be forced to pay for your charities at the expense of my charities?