Wealthiest Americans Take Home Biggest Slice of Pie in Recorded History

bluemoon wrote:Well, we've got a choice. We can either elect politicians that believe in helping the poor and making the rich pay their fair share, or eventually there will be change in a more violent way. That's how it's gone since the beginning of time. It's not the upper classes that prevail in a government overthrow, just because of the disparity in numbers.
If the voters keep voting in tea-partiers and politicians that don't give a damn about the average American, something will happen to force change on the country.
Only time will tell how this experiment in Democracy will turn out.

bluemoon wrote:No. The words "fair" and "equal" have never meant the same thing. Look them up in the dictionary.

Floridatexan wrote:Once again, what exactly was your point? The evidence suggests that the banksters have made off with all the spoils.  That to me means that the banksters have been defrauding the public, with the help of a...shall we say captive Congress, and with the definite help of the Supremes...and with the definite help of prior administrations...most of which were GOP...but I'm not letting Democrats off the hook, either.  Bill Clinton, one of the most beleaguered presidents in history, probably took the "can't beat em, join em" approach.  

Our system of governance is broken.  What are we going to do about it?

Chrissy wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:Once again, what exactly was your point? The evidence suggests that the banksters have made off with all the spoils.  That to me means that the banksters have been defrauding the public, with the help of a...shall we say captive Congress, and with the definite help of the Supremes...and with the definite help of prior administrations...most of which were GOP...but I'm not letting Democrats off the hook, either.  Bill Clinton, one of the most beleaguered presidents in history, probably took the "can't beat em, join em" approach.  

Our system of governance is broken.  What are we going to do about it?

so obama has no responsibility in this?

bluemoon wrote:Well, we've got a choice.  We can either elect politicians that believe in helping the poor and making the rich pay their fair  share, or  eventually there will be change in a more violent way. That's how it's gone since the beginning of time.  It's not the upper classes that prevail in a government overthrow, just because of the disparity in numbers.
If the voters keep voting in tea-partiers  and politicians  that don't give a damn about the average American, something will happen to force change on the country.
Only time will tell how this experiment in Democracy will turn out.

Sal wrote:Welcome to the new Gilded Age.

Enjoy your hobo beans, my fellow Americans.[/font]

The gulf between the richest 1% of the USA and the rest of the country got to its widest level in history last year.

The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of total income in more than 100 years, according to a an analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%. The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service data.

One of the economists behind the research, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, is a top researcher in the topic of wealth and income inequality. He won the John Bates Clark medal last year. The Clark medal is awarded to the most promising economists under the age of 40. Past winners have includes Paul Krugman of Princeton University, Lawrence Summers and Steve Levitt, co-author of "Freakonomics."

In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000. Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of earnings rose 6.6%.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/10/pay-gap-richest-poorest/2793343/

Sal wrote:You would prefer a little socialism?

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:Once again, what exactly was your point? The evidence suggests that the banksters have made off with all the spoils.  That to me means that the banksters have been defrauding the public, with the help of a...shall we say captive Congress, and with the definite help of the Supremes...and with the definite help of prior administrations...most of which were GOP...but I'm not letting Democrats off the hook, either.  Bill Clinton, one of the most beleaguered presidents in history, probably took the "can't beat em, join em" approach.  

Our system of governance is broken.  What are we going to do about it?

so obama has no responsibility in this?

I'm not saying that, either.  But the biggest perp was Bush.  That's why the economic meltdown occurred near the end of his presidency.  Then he handed off two wars and an economy in freefall to Obama, plus he sat there in the last couple of months producing signing statements that pretty  much gutted every agency he hadn't rendered impotent, with the help of his partners in crime...such as his daddy.  You can think whatever you want (I'm sure you will anyway), but the Bush family has a long and sordid history of crime.  You can believe me or not, but if you really research their history, you will come to hate them as well.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

bluemoon wrote:Well, we've got a choice.  We can either elect politicians that believe in helping the poor and making the rich pay their fair  share, or  eventually there will be change in a more violent way. That's how it's gone since the beginning of time.  It's not the upper classes that prevail in a government overthrow, just because of the disparity in numbers.
If the voters keep voting in tea-partiers  and politicians  that don't give a damn about the average American, something will happen to force change on the country.
Only time will tell how this experiment in Democracy will turn out.

That was what all you supposedly enlightened progressive liberals assured us was happening five years ago and the situation appears to have only gotten worse.

God help us during the next...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWm03wYBTbM

Sal wrote:You've mistaken "fascism" for "socialism". 


It's OK. 


Pkr does it all the time. 


lol

Sal wrote:I don't read Ayn Rand. 


She was a hack. 

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:Once again, what exactly was your point? The evidence suggests that the banksters have made off with all the spoils.  That to me means that the banksters have been defrauding the public, with the help of a...shall we say captive Congress, and with the definite help of the Supremes...and with the definite help of prior administrations...most of which were GOP...but I'm not letting Democrats off the hook, either.  Bill Clinton, one of the most beleaguered presidents in history, probably took the "can't beat em, join em" approach.  

Our system of governance is broken.  What are we going to do about it?

so obama has no responsibility in this?

I'm not saying that, either.  But the biggest perp was Bush.  That's why the economic meltdown occurred near the end of his presidency.  Then he handed off two wars and an economy in freefall to Obama, plus he sat there in the last couple of months producing signing statements that pretty  much gutted every agency he hadn't rendered impotent, with the help of his partners in crime...such as his daddy.  You can think whatever you want (I'm sure you will anyway), but the Bush family has a long and sordid history of crime.  You can believe me or not, but if you really research their history, you will come to hate them as well.

You'd have an easier time if you finally accepted the FACTS and TRUTH.

If it is the Bush family that has such a "long and sordid history of crime", why are so many of President Barack Hussein Obama's friends and associates convicted felons or felons currently serving time.  Have you looked at the history of all the fine folks associate with President William Jefferson Clinton and where they ended up?

What about President Obama's father?  You're saying he is a fine example of a father?

I know how outraged you get when confronted with the FACTS...such is life.

PkrBum wrote:

Sal wrote:I don't read Ayn Rand. 


She was a hack. 

Well I have... and marx, hitler, lenin, mussolini, tao, alinski, wilson, fdr, shaw... and countless others.

Again... what's the big diff?

Floridatexan wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

bluemoon wrote:Well, we've got a choice.  We can either elect politicians that believe in helping the poor and making the rich pay their fair  share, or  eventually there will be change in a more violent way. That's how it's gone since the beginning of time.  It's not the upper classes that prevail in a government overthrow, just because of the disparity in numbers.
If the voters keep voting in tea-partiers  and politicians  that don't give a damn about the average American, something will happen to force change on the country.
Only time will tell how this experiment in Democracy will turn out.

That was what all you supposedly enlightened progressive liberals assured us was happening five years ago and the situation appears to have only gotten worse.

God help us during the next...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWm03wYBTbM

You're an ignorant dumbass.  What part of "economy in freefall" is hard for you to understand?  Of course the situation got worse...that was the point.  And as much as you hate to admit it, the economy has improved with Obama at the helm...not particularly to the benefit of the majority, but at least it has improved and not stagnated.  

My background is in all these areas...banking, advertising, construction, real estate.  That doesn't completely sum it up, but I can damn sure tell you that I know what the hell I'm discussing here.