SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zax who wrote (964794)9/16/2016 3:17:35 PM
From: Broken_Clock1 Recommendation

Recommended By
jlallen

  Respond to of 1586426
 
correction:

Biggest wealth gap increase in the history of the United States

Go 1%ers !!!!



To: zax who wrote (964794)9/16/2016 3:21:58 PM
From: Broken_Clock1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 1586426
 
Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager Admits 2008 Birther Link



Charles Rex Arbogast / Associated Press

by Joel B. Pollak16 Sep 2016 57




SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager in 2008 until the Iowa caucuses, admitted on Friday that a Clinton campaign staffer had, in fact, circulated the Birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. and therefore potentially ineligible to serve in the presidency. Doyle made the admission on Twitter, as she responded to former George W. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. Fleischer said that Clinton’s staff had spread the rumor. Doyle said that was a “lie” — but admitted, in the same tweet, that she had fired the “rogue” staffer who had used email to spread the Birther conspiracy theory.

No, @AriFleischer, it is not. The one rogue staffer who sent an email was fired pretty damn quick.

This is a lie. t.co

— Mo Elleithee (@MoElleithee) September 16, 2016



Doyle appeared about an hour later on CNN with Wolf Blitzer to address the issue once again. She denied that Hillary Clinton had started the Birther theory — then admitted that someone in the Clinton campaign had, in fact, been involved. Here is part their exchange:

Blitzer: Someone supporting Hillary Clinton was trying to promote this so-called Birther issue? What happened?

Doyle: So we — absolutely, the campaign nor Hillary did not start the Birther movement, period, end of story there. There was a volunteer coordinator, I believe, in late 2007, I believe, in December, one of our volunteer coordinators in one of the counties in Iowa — I don’t recall whether they were an actual paid staffer, but they did forward an email that promoted the conspiracy.

Blitzer: The Birther conspiracy?

Doyle: Yeah, Hillary made the decision immediately to let that person go. We let that person go. And it was so, beyond the pale, Wolf, and so not worthy of the kind of campaign that certainly Hillary wanted to run.

Doyle went on to relate how she personally called Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to apologize, and he accepted. Blitzer then asked her about the Mark Penn memorandum, in which the campaign’s strategist proposed exploiting Obama’s “ lack of American roots.” Doyle asserted, and Blitzer agreed, that the memo had nothing to do with Birtherism.



Earlier Friday morning, in a speech in Washington, D.C. largely devoted to veterans and military endorsements, Republican nominee Donald Trump briefly addressed the Birther issue:

Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the Birther controversy. I finished it. I finished it. You know what I mean. President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period. Now we all want to get back to making America strong and great again. Thank you very much.

Journalists, furious that they had devoted nearly a half hour of coverage to Trump’s veterans event before he addressed the Birther issue they wished to press, asserted on several networks and platforms that Trump had falsely accused Clinton of starting the Birther controversy.

As Breitbart News has long documented, Hillary Clinton supporters were the original “Birthers,” and Obama himself muddied the waters by allowing his literary agent to claim for years that he had been “ born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia.”



To: zax who wrote (964794)9/16/2016 3:24:57 PM
From: Bonefish  Respond to of 1586426
 
Just in time to pay Pubo and Health Insurance a 20% increase! Yo Bama!



To: zax who wrote (964794)9/16/2016 3:33:42 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1586426
 
Michelle paraphrasing Dr. Goebbels again?

++++

Household Net Worth Hits A Record $89 Trillion... There Is Just One Catch






by Tyler Durden
Sep 16, 2016 2:48 PM




0
SHARES



As part of its quarterly Flow of Funds update, earlier today the Fed released snapshot of the US "household" sector as of June 30. What it revealed is that with $103.8 trillion in assets and a modest $14.7 trillion in liabilities, the net worth of the average US household rose to a new all time high of $89.1 trillion, up $1.1 trillion as a result of an estimated $474 billion increase in real estate values, and mostly $750 billion increase in various stock-market linked financial assets like corporate equities, mutual and pension funds.

Household borrowing rose at a 4.4% annual rate, with total household liabilities grew growing by $200 billion from $14.5 trillion to $14.7 trillion, the bulk of which was $9.6 trillion in home mortgages.

The breakdown of the total household balance sheet as of Q2 is shown below.





And while it would be great news if wealth across America had indeed risen as much as the chart above shows, the reality is that there is a big catch: as shown previously, virtually all of the net worth, and associated increase thereof, has only benefited a handful of the wealthiest Americans.

As a reminder, from the CBO's latest Trends in Family Wealth analysis, here is a breakdown of the above chart by wealth group, which sadly shows how the "average" American wealth is anything but.



While the breakdown has not caught up with the latest data, it provides an indicative snapshot of who benefits. Here is how the CBO recently explained the wealth is distributed:

  • In 2013, families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution held 76 percent of all family wealth, families in the 51st to the 90th percentiles held 23 percent, and those in the bottom half of the distribution held 1 percent.
  • Average wealth was about $4 million for families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution, $316,000 for families in the 51st to 90th percentiles, and $36,000 for families in the 26th to 50th percentiles. On average, families at or below the 25th percentile were $13,000 in debt.
Even worse, when looking at how wealth distribution changed from 1989 to 2013, a clear picture emerges. Over the period from 1989 through 2013, family wealth grew at significantly different rates for different segments of the U.S. population. In 2013, for example:The wealth of families at the 90th percentile of the distribution was 54 percent greater than the wealth at the 90th percentile in 1989, after adjusting for changes in prices.

  • The wealth of those at the median was 4 percent greater than the wealth of their counterparts in 1989.
  • The wealth of families at the 25th percentile was 6 percent less than that of their counterparts in 1989.
  • As the chart below shows, nobody has experienced the same cumulative growth in after-tax income as the "Top 1%"




The above is particularly topical in a week when the Census Bureau released data that real median household incomes somehow rose by over 5% (which we refuted in a recent post). To be sure, marxists of the world may want to avoid the following section from the CBO, as they may suffer permanent injury:








The distribution of wealth among the nation’s families was more unequal in 2013 than it had been in 1989. For instance, the difference in wealth held by families at the 90th percentile and the wealth of those in the middle widened from $532,000 to $861,000 over the period (in 2013 dollars). The share of wealth held by families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution increased from 67 percent to 76 percent, whereas the share of wealth held by families in the bottom half of the distribution declined from 3 percent to 1 percent.

Finally, when Obama touts the US "income recovery" he may have forgotten about
half of America, but one entity remembers well: loan collectors. As the
chart below shows, America's poor families have never been more in debt.










The share of families in debt (those whose total debt
exceeded their total assets) remained almost unchanged between 1989 and
2007 and then increased by 50 percent between 2007 and 2013. In 2013,
those families were more in debt than their counterparts had been either
in 1989 or in 2007.
For instance, 8 percent of families were in debt in 2007 and, on average, their debt exceeded their assets by $20,000. By
2013, in the aftermath of the recession of 2007 to 2009, 12 percent of
families were in debt and, on average, their debt exceeded their assets
by $32,000
.



The increase in average indebtedness between 2007 and 2013 for families in debt was mainly the result of falling home equity and rising student loan balances. In 2007, 3 percent of families in debt had negative home equity: They
owed, on average, $16,000 more than their homes were worth. In 2013,
that share was 19 percent of families in debt, and they owed, on
average, $45,000 more than their homes were worth.
The share of families in debt that had outstanding student debt rose from 56 percent in 2007 to 64 percent in 2013, and the average amount of their loan balances increased from $29,000 to $41,000.



And there is your recovery: the wealthy have never been wealthier, while half of America, some 50% of households, now own just 1% of the country's wealth, down from 3% in 1989, while America's poor have never been more in debt.