Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (49682)	7/28/2006 8:11:18 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent." Still doesn't support your claim. Falling shares, however long ago they happened, are not the same as becoming poorer. Additional schooling is surely in order. Oh, and speaking of straw men ... "This is coming from someone who supports the right and presumably its president......a man who says "nucklar" for nuclear, tries to back rub the chancellor of Germany and looks the other way when Israel bombs the hell out of Lebanon?" I can hear you singing the song now - "if I only had a brain ..." PS: For the record, he pronounces it new-ku-lar, not nucklar. If you're going to make fun, at least try to get a clue as to his actual mispronunciation.

To: tejek who wrote (49682)	7/28/2006 9:05:55 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

In any case, I guess you need to see something that explains the premise behind my second statement that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the lesser classes.....well here........knock yourself out: "The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent." That doesn't show that the rich are getting richer at the expense of everyone else. "At thier expense" doesn't just imply a larger share of the total wealth. It implies that the less than rich are actually losing. More than that it implies that they are losing because of the actions of the rich or at least that the same thing that is causing the rich to become wealthier is also causing the less than rich to become poorer.

To: tejek who wrote (49682)	7/29/2006 12:18:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I was tired of repeating the same ole same ole. So you lied since the facts woulsdn't support your case. a man who says "nucklar" for nuclear Your mispellling od the mispronunciation has been noted elsewhere. But did you know Jimmy Carter pronounces it "nuk-u-lar"? Sorry, guy, but you all do not have any credibility when it comes to intellect or anything else for that matter. Coming from someone with the ignorance you have demonstrated, this is no insult. "The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent." Year Billions of chained 2000 US dollars 1973 4296.367 2002 9986.823 So: .0424296.367 = 180.47 .0359967.823 = 348.88 or, to put it more clearly, the income of the lower population in fact DID increase between the cited years; it al;mosr doubled, in fact. Note that this is in stable dollars;inflation has been accounted for. You were saying?

To: tejek who wrote (49682)	7/29/2006 5:39:14 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

nytimes.com INTERESTING! Now if you believe that graph, your "rich get richer" effect is INDEPENDENT of the party in control of the WH and/or the Congress. This effect occurred under Clinton AS WELL AS under Bush. It reached a low point under that (according to liberals) SOB Nixon. They became steadily relatively poorer under his Republican President, Eisenhower. It should be interesting to hear your explanations of these effects. If you have any.