Fed: Wealth gap continues to widen
By Ann Saphir, Reuters
The gap between the richest Americans and the rest of the nation widened after the Great Recession, a survey by the Federal Reserve showed on Thursday, suggesting deepening U.S. income inequality.
Though incomes of the highest-earners rose, none of the groups analyzed by the Fed had regained their 2007 income levels by 2013, underscoring deep scars from the financial crisis and its aftermath.
The Fed survey released suggests that wealth and income is concentrated not just within the top 1 percent, as some analyzes have suggested, but actually among a slightly broader slice of the ultra-rich: the top 3 percent.
From 2010 to 2013, average income for U.S. families rose about 4 percent after accounting for inflation, the survey showed. All of the income growth was concentrated among the top earners, the survey showed, with the top 3 percent accounting for 30.5 percent of all income.
Income Inequality has been around since Homo Sapiens gave up hunting and gathering and became “civilized.” For thousands of years income inequality manifested itself as Elites controlling Slaves. In India, the Caste System is still used today to pass down through each generation wealth or poverty. Slavery has existed on every Continent and in every major society, even the America’s prior to discovery. If you were defeated in War, you were likely made a slave of the conquering forces. The Roman and the Egyptian Empires (plus many more) relied on slaves for cheap labor. Unfortunately, raw slavery still exists today.
Thankfully, Americans abandoned slavery in the 19th Century. We have a simply way to correct income inequality in America via our vote and system of taxation. I have NO problem bringing back the Estate Tax Rates and the Exemption Amounts under Eisenhower during the 1950’s.
Rock4tahoe..well written.
So you’d rather bring successful people down than allow less successful people the freedom to rise on their own? Keep them beholden to government to provide for them?
Why is it greed for people who earn money to want to keep it, while it’s not greed for other people to want to take it from them? That makes no sense to me. By what right does one group of people get to take, by force, from another? How is that different from robbery?
Dog. I do not think that President Eisenhower felt that he was bringing successful people “down” with his Tax Rates during the 1950’s. He was faced with reality of having to pay for WWII, GI Bills, Europe, Asia and Highways.
Everyone, including successful or not-successful benefit from our society as a whole and should bare the costs of keeping it so. Successful or lucky people may be one thing but heirs to huge estates simply perpetuates another form of Aristocracy. Aristocracy and Greed have gone hand in hand over the centuries.
Simple example. The average pay for a Private in the United States Army is about $50k and for argument sake we will double it to $100k for Combat Duty. So, in 4 years of Combat Duty a GI might make $400k protecting the “successful heirs” Millions or Billions and even Trillions. The GI is not just risking his salary but is literally risking his life for the likes of the Walton Heirs. I personally find this to be very inequitable.
Or put another way. What ultimately happens if the Private and the United States Army is “unsuccessful” at protecting the Billionaires? They do not lose a fraction of their wealth to taxes, they loose it all to the conquering forces. I think the wealthy need to keep that in mind, I am sure Ike realized it all to well.
Dog, there is not one example of a healthy economy that continues to operates with the extreme wealth gap we are presently experiencing. They all simply collapse. I direct you to an open letter that Nick Hannuaer a 1/tenth of the 1% wrote to his wealthy colleagues. As he points out, stability is critical if he and others want to hold onto their great wealth. Closing the income gap (which is nearly unprecedented) is critical for maintaining a strong economy. Increasing the income gap becomes more destabilizing – not good for any of us.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.VBDlY-f78tg
Rick
Rock, the average pay for an E3 (pfc) in the army is $21,665.
But neither you, nor Rick, addressed the point I was making. As usual. I’m done with this topic. You argue against points I do not make.
If one is opposed to the increasing wealth gap, then you should be opposed the policy causing it! That of course is the Fed’s ‘Quantitative Easing’ which is causing artificial stock market increases. Thus benefiting the wealthy stock owning class.
And FYI with Eisenhower. There was a 90% tax rate for income over, what would now be, adjusted for inflation, $3.5 mil. Very few paid it.
But for further perspective, currently tax receipts are 17.8% of GDP. Then they fluctuated between 17.6-18.7% of GDP. So on par with today. (Federal Spending of course was a lot lower!)
Anyway, if one is for increasing taxes on the wealthy, then hopefully you’re for cutting taxes on the Middle Income? That is if fairness is what you’re getting at?
Dog. You know that it depends on Pay Grade, Skills and years of service. I also directly addressed your comments. Whine someplace else.
Parker. The income gap started in the 1980’s so your argument about interest rates does not match the time frames involved. My point is that we somehow “survived” higher tax rates under Ike: income, estate & capital gains.
People in my neighborhood have 401k’s and investments and I live in the Y; nothing fancy. So, it is not just wealthy day traders making money.
We can debate when the wealth gap started to grow. But this story is about how it continues to grow. And in recent years it’s been because of the artificial stock inflation due to the Fed’s Quantitative Easing.
I don’t know how that can even be debated? But if you don’t believe me, go onto cnbc.com where they have multiple stories/articles on it. And since it’s the same owners as msnbc, it can’t in anyway be accused of being right-wing biased!
Are there some moderate income people with a stake in the stock market? Of course. But the overall great beneficiary of its Fed ‘pumped up’ shall we say, rise has no doubt been the wealthy!
” The average pay for a Private in the United States Army is about $50k ”
“Dog. You know that it depends on Pay Grade, Skills and years of service.”
Backpedal much? You clearly know nothing of how the military works. As I said, the AVERAGE pay of an E3, PFC in the army is $21,665. Admit you are wrong.
And you did not address my statement regarding theft of earnings. Even though you say you did. You lie, too.
Dear dawg:
http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/total-compensation.html
You are conveniently leaving out 60% of the picture.
And for the weekyl dose of strawdog BS:
‘So you’d rather bring successful people down than allow less successful people the freedom to rise on their own?’
No one said that nor implied it and good luck making the case for how this is an accurate summary of their statements.
‘How is that different from robbery?’
Simple minded over simplification. Take a high school civics class. Ponder the concept of the social contract. Look at the anarchist countries in the world and how well they are doing with the lack of infrastructure and social unrest.
‘Why is it greed for people who earn money to want to keep it, while it’s not greed for other people to want to take it from them? That makes no sense to me’
It shouldn’t make sense to you because the question is rhetorical and stupid. Step one, admit that you have a problem. Step 2, listen to people who are smarter than you are.
Dog. If the Average Soldier is making even less then my estimate, it only enhances my overall argument. An E-8 with 10 Years is makes about $50k and he/she may have a housing allowance.
An E-8 is not a Private.
Fish, I listen to people who are smarter than I am every day. But you are not one of them.
Parker. Lower interest rates for housing, transportation and businesses help people too.
No debate, the income inequality gap started with Reagan’s supply side trickle down tax cuts aimed at the wealthy.
So, If you were King for a day, what would do to interest rates specifically?
Actually the income gap began increasing during the Carter inflationary years! But this story is about the recent, the recent! increasing wealth discrepancy. I love how you always try to change the subject.
So let’s see, we’ve had artificially low rates. And you talk about the benefits for all. Yet, the wealth gap has increased. Put 2 & 2 together!
Thus you can’t criticize Reagan, unless you also give the same criticism to Obama. His appointed Fed has as they’re stated purpose, (they’re stated purpose!) of making the rich richer as a solution to increase economic growth. So when the people that support Obama complain about the results of the policies his appointees are purposely undertaking, I’m aghast at their inability to put 2 & 2 together!
And there should not be any one person dictating what the exact rate of interest should be. It needs to be at whatever natural level results from the Federal Reserve ending its bond buying program (supposedly happening in Oct.), and from the safe unloading of its $4T balance sheet (the result of its bond buying program).
Dog, I did address the question you raise (some form of redistribution of wealth) or should I say Nick Haunner did by pointing out your “straw dog” argument indirectly. We have worked to redistribute wealth throughout our history, with great success. T Roosevelt did, at great angst of the wealthy of his day (his own party mind you), Clinton did with great success; the cut of taxes on the wealthy that Bush instituted did not work. Trickle down economics is a political strategy and has never worked to stimulate the economy. For example, the cut of state taxes in Kansas has nearly bankrupt the state and it has much slower economic growth than its neighbors. Reducing the income gap strengthens economies for all, including the uber wealthy. It is the long sophisticated view, not the short-sighted simplistic view of economics. Evidence vs perception.
Rick
Rick
Parker. Love how you just love to listen to yourself talk/type.
I dispute your claim about when the income gap started because it is common knowledge and graphed in multiple sources.
Carter appointed Volcker and he raised rates to 20% then dropped them to 8% two years latter for Reagan; while Reagan was tripling the National Debt.
By the way, we are still by and large living with the Reagan/Bush Tax Rates now. Except for the Clinton years in which the wealthy paid a bit more and we had budget surpluses along with Greenspan’s high interest rates; factor that in your 2 + 2 nonsense.
Stop with the blah blah blah if this if that and just say you don’t know what the interest rates should be since you obviously don’t have a clue. In my opinion, interest rates are never “natural.”
This from the guy that is always wrong about his facts? You love to type all the wrong info!
Let’s see, I proved you wrong about the pay of CA State Employees, you bizarrely cited me from 1992?, 17 years before this blog even existed, and you falsely claimed the recovery was passing me by without having a clue about my income status.
And when you’re proven wrong, you go to personal attacks, and change the subject, just like you did with this LTN story! The current growth in the income gap is due to the Fed’s QE monetary policy. It’s even the stated goal of the policy to make the rich, richer. Glad to know that’s what Democrats are for.
But just so you have your info. correct, Greenspan actually kept rates too low, by his own admission, and economic bubbles occured. Hence concern about the current policy.
Under Carter inflation soared, and if banks wanted to make a profit on lent money, they had to exceed inflation. But there was an increase in the wealth gap during his Admin., with the lowest income groups having declining income. Fact!
Under Reagan, yes the income gap grew. But even the lowest incomes net income increased. Fact!
Yes, Clinton balanced budget. He had a Republican Congress and benefitted from an economic bubble.
(Yes, divided govt. does lead to more restrained spending.)
Currently, under Obama, the wealthy are getting wealthier! But the lowest incomes are not as they’ve had to deal with higher gas & food costs. Fact!
‘This from the guy that is always wrong about his facts? You love to type all the wrong info!’
This coming from the guy who cites discredited scientists and attempts to comparative economic analysis without normalizing GDP.
‘ I listen to people who are smarter than I am every day.’
You just stop short at the comprehension part. How old is the earth? LOL you’re a clown.
I did define normalized GDP, and used it in the point I was making on that particular column! (And I’ll talk Climate on the Climate stories.)
Parker the narcissist; always about YOU isn’t it. I was comparing your “old” arguments to similar arguments in the 80’s and 90’s not YOU and or any other blog. YOU are the only one that freaks out about the FED and QE. YOU now claim FED/Greenspan kept rates low for Bush after 911, and high for Clinton (and Carter); artificial indeed.
I suggest that we need to go back the the Tax Rates under Ike and YOU come back with, “there was a 90% tax rate… very few paid it.” Gosh, could that be the point… 1% and all paying their share.
I remember Reagan and his 23% tax rate cut; while others were getting back thousands it amounted to $178 for me. So what if Reagan tripled the debt though.
Now YOU want drag Congress into the debate yet ignore the current Congress or others.
Sorry, your Republican roots are showing Parker.
Fact. The economy does better under Democratic Presidents.
Facts. Under Democratic Presidents (since Truman):
More Jobs Created (18.4 million more; private sector)
More GDP Growth (4.4 v 2.5%)
More Per Capita Income (2.2% more)
Higher Consumer Spending (4.8% more)
Higher Family Incomes (1.6 v 1.1%)
High Stock Market Values (5.4% higher)
Higher Corporate Profits (5.4 v 4.7%)
Lower Unemployment (down .8%)
Facts. Under Republican Presidents:
Higher Unemployment (up 1.1%)
National Debt grows 2.5 times more then under Democratic Presidents.
Republican Presidents are more corrupt and have had dozens of Cabinet Members convicted of Felonies; Democrats have had Zero.
Hoover was a Republican when the Great Depression Started.
Bush Sr was a Republican when the Savings and Loans Crisis hit.
Bush jr was a Republican when the Great Recession started.
BTY. It gets WORSE for Republicans if you go back to Hoover.
But, YOU can keep harping about QE, Democrats and the Feds all you want.
It took FDR/Truman almost 2 decades to cleanup the mess from Hoover and it will take more then half a decade to cleanup after Bush jr. Oh, but you don’t believe in history before January 2009… how cute.
You’re grossly oversimplifying a very complicated economic history. But that’s normal here in the blogs. Presidents don’t control the purse strings; Congress does.
But if you want to play that game, most Democrats consider themselves the party of peace. Yet WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all were started by Democrat Presidents. And Clinton had his share of little skirmishes whenever there were Bimbo Eruptions as well. Now it looks like obama wants to bring back the draft (at least Charlie Rangel is talking about it) and send us BACK into war in the middle east, supporting the guy he wanted to bomb just a few months ago. So I wouldn’t brag too much about D’s being better than R’s. They’re all bad.
Dog. I have to simplify my my facts so you can understand them. (You can find the same facts on Fox News, Fortune or Forbes sites if you want.)
Truman dropped two Atomic Bombs on Japan. Party of peace YES, but don’t piss us off with a sneak attack.
At least President Obama didn’t take photo ops and want to send guns to ISIS like your pals McCain and Graham did last year.
I will brag about Democratic success and state facts whenever I please, you goin’ to try to stop me.
Ah yes, the “they are all bad mean ‘ol gubment” argument. Yet, you are still here when there are hundreds of Countries on this Planet that I am sure would welcome you with open arms Dog… LOL!
‘Yet WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all were started by Democrat Presidents.’
Yes. A democrat asassinated Franz Ferdinand, and invaded Poland. LOL silly lady.
‘I did define normalized GDP, and used it in the point I was making on that particular column! ‘
You tried to use GDP without normalizing during a comparison. Which is really amateur stuff. And the whole thing with the climate scientist you liked citing that revised all of their own research after it was exposed to be horseplop was pretty hilarious too.
‘Yet WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all were started by Democrat Presidents.’
I really need to know. Do you think this an intelligent statement and did you see intelligent when you wrote it? No sense of irony?
You are both being ridiculous, and changing the point, again. It wasn’t a World War till we got involved. And those Democrat Presidents got us involved. And yep, couple of those wars were ENDED by Republicans. What’s yer point?
No, I know what your point it. And I think it’s stupid.
Wow.
Cosa,
Why you and Rock like to change the subject so much is just amazing?! As is your failure to read. After you made a comment about normalized GDP, I defined it. And used it in my argument. Period.
We could talk about Climate Change on this wealth gap story, but that’s changing the subject. Except when you challenged the credibility of a scientist I cited, I furnished another one you didn’t question and then asked about all the funding of all the pro human caused climate change scientists. Those are just the facts. Create new ones if you like, cause you’ll never reach the level of Rock in that way! And you do read better than he does!
Rock, try to read what I actually say! Please! Try! Never denied I was a Republican. Never! But am willing to criticize them. (As I’d previously stated, Bush 2 and the Republicans in Congress at that time were bad about spending!)
No Rock, again read what I say, as I’ve said all of this before: I’m not freaking out about the Fed QE, I’m criticizing it. No, I’m far from the only one criticizing it. As I said, go to that far from right-wing biased CNBC for many columns that do.
I said that statement about Eisenhower was correct, just put it in some context, including that with that 90% rate tax rate, revenues as a % of GDP were on par w/ today. (Though spending then was a lot lower.) So fine if you want to raise taxes on the rich, if it’s a revenue neutral plan you’re promoting!
I’ll take your word on those statistics. I researched the Eisenhower info., but memory goes back to Carter. With inflation, unemployment & gas lines, those years were terrible! It was corrected when Reagan came into office. I know that, cause I lived it. Was it perfect when he left? No, but it was one hell of a lot better! (And that’s why I switched from originally being a Democrat. That first-hand life experience.)
And Yes, we grew in the 90’s. (I said that if you would read!). But there was a bubble and Republicans controlled Congress. More facts and context.
Now, this story about the wealth gap. It grows because of the stated policy, the stated policy (read) of the Obama appointed Fed! You got a problem with it, blame Obama. If you don’t have a problem with it, if like the rich getting richer, while the poor struggle with higher food & energy costs. Great!
Parker. Again, YOU DO NOT CONTROL this blog or the comments. You brought up Fed QE NOT me, and statistically it has nothing to do with income inequality.
It is NOT MY WORD on the Factual Economic Statistics, it comes from actual Professor(s) of Economics and Statistics at Princeton; not some alias from a blog.
The same Factual Statistics say that Congress and who controls Congress have NOTHING to do with the Historical Democratic Economic Advantages.
They are republished on Fox, Forbes, Fortune if you want to look. Fox and Forbes admit they are correct but claim Democrats are just “lucky.” So much for objective thinking there ‘eh.
The recent wealth gap started after 1980 and it really increased after 2000. Look up..
Piketty-Saez Data on Income Concentration for reference if you want to see for yourself.
Your Obama – Fed – interest rate talking points do not match reality:
Under Ford, inflation hit 12% in September of 1974, yet the Fed actually lowered prime interest during that time from 12% to 10.25%; a 1.75% drop during 12% inflation.
We had the oil embargo and inflation hit 14% under Carter in February of 1980 and the Fed hiked prime interest rates to 20% in April of 1980; a 6% spread during 14% inflation.
Under Clinton in the 1990’s, inflation went to 3.3% in January of 1993 yet the Fed kept interest rates at 8-9% for most Clinton’s Presidency; a 7% spread during mostly 2% inflation.
Under Bush jr in September 2005, inflation went to 4.7%, yet the Fed raised interest rates to 6.75%; a 2% spread.
Currently under Obama, inflation is running 2% and interest rates are 3.25%; a 1.25% spread.
It appears that the only thing worse then inflation is deflation and I believe the Fed is doing the right thing.
My point is that the Fed is supposed to be “objective” yet historically they seem to be “subjective” with interest rates during Party Presidential terms. We will see what the future brings.
Dog. Going back to the name calling again… how cute. Well. you are stupid too… so there… ney!
Rock, there is an indian tribe in the Polynesian islands that noted that lice always left the body right before a person died. It was obvious to them that lice cause health and the absence of lice causes death.
Correlation does not equal causation.
A president has about as much control over the economy as my dog does.
http://freakonomics.com/2010/11/04/freakonomics-radio-how-much-does-the-president-really-matter/
Rock,
Why do you keep saying I try to control this blog? Say whatever you want. I just respond when it’s clear you haven’t read what I say, and then you make stuff up! It’s a bad habit of yours.
Congress has nothing to do with the economy? Say what? That’s just plain ol’ flat Earth talk. Or if you really believe it, then you’re telling all your friends you don’t mind if they vote for Republicans for Congress cause it just doesn’t matter? Fine then!
And while I could chop up a lot of your statistics, for instance under Carter at one point inflation hit 18%, and the wealth gap did increase under him, as the poor got poorer, I’ll thank you for helping prove my point. You cited the growth of the 90’s, and we had higher interest rates.
Now, for the story at hand: the wealth gap keeps increasing because of the stated policy of the Obama appointed Fed. Rates aren’t just low, the Fed has pumped money into the economy to the tune of over $4T in bond purchases. If someone has a problem with the wealth gap increasing, blame Obama.
However, after all your name calling and changing the subject, at the end of your post you stated that you’re for the QE program and why. Great! I think I’ve made it clear that I’m opposed to it, and why.
You have your opinion and I, mine. This is America, and when someone has a different opinion that fact should be respected, not belittled.
Parker. If YOU had read the research it was clearly stated that Congress and who controlled Congress had no significant sway of the data. Your bad habit is whining and opinionated dribble.
Rock,
While criticizing your points, I at least at the end showed respect for your opinion. It’s too bad you can’t show respect for others who differ. For instance bizarrely claiming I was the only one who held a negative opinion of the Fed’s QE policy? Of course I then quite easily pointed out that fallacy.
No Rock, your habit is name-calling, changing the subject and outright making stuff up (such as knowing what I was saying in ’92, or knowing what my financial situation is) because you’ve been outright proven wrong! Not to mention not accurately reading what I state.
So I’ll say it again. Congress has no effect on economic data? Only Presidents do? So everyone should vote Republican for Congress cause it just doesn’t matter, huh? (By the way, that’s not how you motivate your fellow Dems to turnout to vote
Parker. “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
You want me to play a violin for you now… a really small one?
Again. For the record. Yes, I agree with the Princeton Researchers that posted their data including their names over your anonymous blog dribble.
BTY. Not that you care. But, the DOW and S&P hit records again today with President Obama in the White House and Janet Yellen running the FED. Well, The economy does better under Democratic Presidents.
What do you want to discuss now… favorite colors… which is BLUE worldwide.
Moral says. “A president has about as much control over the economy as my dog does.”
Dubner and Freakonomics?! LOL! Your “dog” may have a something else higher too, but that is another issue.
Yes Rock,
Thanks in that I had a technical difficulty on the previous post and was cut off. So now I can complete what I was saying:
And yes, you are not entitled to your own facts! Fact, this story is about the Wealth Gap. Fact, yes, thanks to Obama and Yellen the rich are getting richer, thus increasing the wealth gap. That’s what this story about. And good to know you’re looking out for the wealthy.
Whatever you cite, I’ve regularly proven it inaccurate. (Yes, the economy did great under Jimmy Carter? Well maybe under Clinton. But he wasn’t printing money and he had a Republican Congress.)
And yet, I’m not even talking about when you just outright make stuff up.
And Yes, my only sources have been the right-wing biased news outlets of the SF Chronicle, CNN & CNBC. All of which ran the story just a couple days ago, well after this story was first posted, of how while the wealthy are getting wealthier, median income, thus for the average American as a whole, has not budged.
So Yes, the stated policy of the Fed has been to increase the wealth of the stock holding class. But as the Chronicle, CNN & CNBC all pointed out it, it hasn’t helped the average American.
It’s unfortunate some people just don’t care about that!
So Parker, where do you think we should turn? I gather you’re as disgusted as I am at the takeover of our government and our economy by the wealthy, assuming that the government should protect their largesse, but firmly declaring that protection for those of us among the unwashed amounts to falling under control of the boogeyman, socialism.
I’m by no means a socialist, nor do I accept any other labels, but the fact that the wealthy expect the government to protect and serve them while the very same folks defending wealth, likewise defend their position that the unwealthy/unwashed are failures, deserving what they get, and any support the government and taxpayers might give to protecting them and our overall economy, especially if it involves cutting into the rights of our corporate heroes to fleece all of us, is somehow an attack on free enterprise.
Copper,
Deep questions. And I enjoy being able to express myself on all kinds of topics on this forum, I’ll just say that on this topic, the Wealth Gap, the govt. should at least do no harm.
They’ve (the Fed) greatly increased our money supply, said yesterday that they’re going to keep doing it for awhile. Why? Because the economy is still weak, and that’s according to them. So in other words, they admit they’re own policy after 5 yrs. hasn’t been working, so their plan is to keep it up.
But the results have been, the wealthiest Americans have gotten wealthier, yet the average Americans income hasn’t budged, and the poor struggle with higher food & energy costs. In fact they’ve now got people believing $3.75 gasoline is a good deal.
So where should we turn you ask, Copper? For starters stop this Fed policy that punishes savings, as that’s where Middle Income Americans typically have their money since they’re not in much of a position for risk, and subsidizes the wealthiest individuals and corporations.
Per the perpetrators of it, the Fed, 5 yrs. in it hasn’t solved the problem, and per this story, it’s increasing the income discrepancy amongst our citizens.
Parker. The only thing you “cite” is hot air. Your mantra is to raise interest rates to some “natural” level of unknown percentage, “stop this Fed policy that punishes savings.” What utter nonsense.
Poor Class families are only able to save on average 3% of their income ($600 per year), Middle Class families only save 9% of their income ($5400 per year), Wealthy Class families save 16% of their income ($32000 per year). So the REAL winners of higher interest rates are the Wealthy.
Only thing you do is name call! And make up stuff!
But here again the facts: The lower the income the higher the % of spare income is in savings, not stocks. So artificially low rates punishes those savers and rewards those who have a higher % in the stock market, the wealthy.
And I’ll just cite the interest rate policy of the Clinton years, which you also cited, as better for the economy than the current one.
Anyway, another story just today on cnbc.com, same operators as MSNBC, so can’t be accused of bias, of how the Fed’s policies are causing this stagnant economic recovery. AND how, again the point of this story, (the point of this story!) the Fed’s policies are causing the growth in the American Wealth Gap.
So let’s see: You made up stuff about what I said in ’92, about what my income is, how I was the only one who had a problem with the Fed’s policies, and dared me to prove a point about what State Employees made, and I did.
Now again, there’s a story on cnbc.com, today, Sept. 23, proving what I state, and disproving amongst other things, that I’m the only one that has a problem with the Fed’s policies.
So provide a link to a story to one of your claims. The one that says Congress has no impact on economic data. Not on some obscure weird fringe website, but that as you claim was published on Forbes and/or Fox?
Claiming that CNBC is some sort of left leaning news source just proves how misinformed and willfully ignorant you are Parker. http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-rips-on-cnbc-rick-santelli-2009-3 Pull your head out of your rush for a change.
Parker. ’92 income? NO! Again, I was not talking about You but was referring the the “chicken little” tactics used in the 90’s that you like to use today.
We disagreed on State Employee salaries all right because YOU want to try to control how much a person makes as a Financial Planner to CALPERS or a Web Site Designer at UCLA. Then when I mentioned that the real BIG State Salaries (in the Millions) were in the State College Sport Coaching jobs you said “ok” as long as they sell hot dogs and tickets. I still think the Coaches should only make as much as the College players anyway but that is my opinion, which of course differs from yours.
Regarding Jeff Cox’s article, he misses his own target:
He cites a Harvard Study by William Lazonick that claims the $950 Billion in stock buy backs on the Market is the “culprit” for income inequality. (I will leave out the drop in Home Values which I believe has caused a fair amount the of decline in Middle Class net worth.)
Then, Jeff sites The Review’s claims that the Highest Paid Executives made on average $30.3 Million with Stock Options involved in their pay. (I will leave out the fact that about 60% of workers have 401K’s and an argument could be made that high stock values helps this group.)
Then, Jeff sites Michelle Meyer of Merril Lynch, “the current condition is the nature of recoveries, even though wealth disparity is at historic levels.”
Then, Jeff closes with Lazonick again, “muses that CEOs may actually get satisfaction from lower compensation if it means a stronger economy and a growing business.”
But Jeff offers no solution, just a statement, “the buyback and executive compensation binges will have to end.”
I say. If Executives are using the system to make more compensation, and if they refuse to reinvest the compensation into the economy, there is a remedy for this behavior called greed.
So again, I go back to what Ike did. Keep and raise taxes on the Wealthy and create jobs for the poor and unemployed via Government work programs such as building the Interstate Highway system. It’s the same thing that FDR did by the way.
Unfortunately, Republicans do not want to help the Unemployed or the poor, they just keep rallying to the Executives getting their high salaries as so called “job creators.” I say nuts to them.
Get over yourself. Princeton University is not a “weird fringe group.”
No, first you claimed to know what I personally was saying in ’92. Anyone who could read, read that.
And the cite gave many examples of State Employees making over that threshold. Many people paid by our tax dollars. Not coaches who are paid thru other sources of revenue. So bottom line, proved I was correct.
But in another words, caught you again, again! making something up!! I cite specific stories that truly exist! You said there were stories on Forbes and Fox, that DON’T EXIST! Your Princeton study had economic numbers, but where are these studies that say Congress has no impact on economic data?
Disagree with columns I cite, fine. But they exist. You made up stuff that doesn’t exist! Period! Why do you keep digging such a hole for yourself?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4-ISzQ2jc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-95QqBXLG2I
Economy does better under Democratic Presidents
These are the clues… LOL!
TTFN
So in other words you made it up!! LMAO!
I cite facts & real stories, and you pull out of thin air stories that don’t exist, as you claimed, on either Forbes or Fox. LMAO, but at the same time pretty sad on your part!
‘So in other words you made it up!! LMAO! ‘
I think you just made up something about them making something up.
I know first hand the problems you have with sources. Your responses lack substance. Someone writes paragraphs and your go to line is ‘you made it up’.
Weak.
Time to move on. We’re all bored by you guys.
LTN staff