Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

mikekohr

(2,312 posts)
9. Unfortunately this IS the picture of the day
Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:08 PM
Feb 2012

and in many ways explains how we got here:

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/income-inequality-99-versus-1.html

?

That flat, light green line at the bottom of the graph is the average income for the bottom 99% of Americans. It was $31,073 in 1970. Today is stands at $30,091, a decline of 3%.

The bright green line represents the upper 1%. In 1970 the average income for those folks was $318,659.00. Today it stands at $905,570.00, an increase of 284%.

And remember in November, todays entire slate of Republican candidates want to give further breaks to the upper 1% at the expense of the 99%.

?

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
11. What you actually mean to say is that Venezuela has yet to overcome its oligarchy.
Mon Feb 6, 2012, 01:22 PM
Feb 2012

What do you think the ratio was before Chavez?

That it's still so high indicates the government must not have been as mean to the moneybags as they've been claiming. Or as "communist" as you fantasize.

But thanks for the illustration of how one can always make numbers lie, if one puts the right (wrong) spin on them.

JohnnyRingo

(18,614 posts)
4. They've pitted us one against the other.
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 12:53 PM
Feb 2012

Instead of demanding higher wages that allow fiscal independence, the corporate conservatives have us demanding unskilled workers who "earn too much" be taken down a notch. We constantly look up the ladder to pull someone down by their pant leg.

Workers earning in the "sweet spot", or the arbitrary "standard wage", demand an end to social safety nets so they can have someone to look down upon. Corporate propaganda has us believing visible poverty in the community is necessary to make us feel like we're middle class instead of working poor.

Meanwhile, with consumer prices on the rise, corporate board members grant themselves raises based on lower overhead. It's a race to the bottom for anyone who punches a time clock, and a bright future for those who sign the discounted paychecks. Just the way they designed it.

We're so stupid.

On edit:
I call those working class conservatives who go out and preach the word of supply side economics "Barstool Republicans". They live like Archie Bunker and talk like Steve Forbes.

SammyWinstonJack

(44,129 posts)
5. Which is why half of the 99% would have no problem with this 475:1 ratio.
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 01:09 PM
Feb 2012

If it did register at all, it would probably be,Why do you want to penalize the hard work of the successful? or something similar, while they continue to struggle, financially.

Good job, limbaugh!

Yep, stupid.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
12. Great thread, Mike.
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:41 PM
Feb 2012

I wonder if everyone else saw this.

I mean, when the GOP keeps pushing the meme of lower taxes on the wealthy it makes you wonder what the hell they really expect.
I've never seen a hearse pulling a U-Haul trailer behind it ever go to a funeral.

So, there are two things that are inevitable.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Numbers Don't Lie.