Simple Charts Explain How 90% of Americans Get Almost Nothin

inmytree

Simple Charts Explain How 90% of Americans Get Almost Nothing

In this ridiculous country, it’s “class warfare” when working people would like a fair wage and health insurance, but it’s “Morning in America” when the top 1% have harvested nearly every dollar of financial gain in this country for the past 30 years. Corporate taxes have dropped as quickly as CEO salaries and bonuses have risen, and we’re all supposed to “take one for the team” while Wall Street criminals make up new ways to earn billion-dollar bonuses while you get to spend a couple of months arguing with your insurance company (if you’re “lucky enough” to have health care coverage) over whether your kid’s concussion or dad’s cancer is something that might be covered. Mother Jones put together what is possibly the most useful Mother Jones feature ever: A simple collection of visual charts and diagrams to easily explain exactly what the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush Jr./Obama Republican/Democrat governments have done to this country.

Reagan/Bush Sr. tax cuts not big enough for you? (And by “you,” we mean, “the couple of thousand people in America who literally control nearly all wealth in this nation, with our consent.”) Then “you” must have loved the Bush Junior tax cats, and the Obama extension of said cuts. Why should people who earn twenty-seven million dollars per year have to pay a lot of shitty taxes? That’s for poor folk to cover with their payroll tax deductions, right?

Anyway, go look at these pretty grafs and maybe print ‘em out at the library or whatever, and tape them inside your Tea Party lovin’/McDonaldland relatives’ five-year-old reading glasses from the Walmart. Go Galt! [Mother Jones]

http://wonkette.com/438987/simple-chart ... st-nothing

ed243421

i see it as
this nation is a bank
and for a couple hundred years
while "we the people" have been waking up with the sun
and working all day long
doing the backbreaking labor
just to earn some sense of pride
and enough money to just barely be able to pay the bills
or in some cases, to come up a little short every month
and this bank's managers (polititians) have been going home each night with their pockets filled
and "we the people" know this is happening
and "we the people" do nothing about it
because "we" think it's a nightmare
when actually it's the "american dream"

dasvidana

I have long believed we live in a corporate oligarchy where most of the wealth is controlled by a handful of multinational corporations. These corporate heads have already bought the media, energy, and banks, and they buy off members of congress from both parties so that the actions of the corporate elite are entirely legal or at least not prosecuted. The corporate elite have set the system up so that they continue to gain while the rest of us (as depicted by your graphs) are held stagnant. This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue since both parties are enabling this to happen. And since the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, this problem of unchecked corporate power will only get worse. I see a very grim future for most Americans.

he still stands

just wait... it'll trickle down eventually!!!

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but he is definitely trying to fix this. He is still working hard to get banks to issue small business loans but he's had limited success. It's really just the nature of the beast (capitalism) though... once wealth starts accumulating it won't stop until someone intervenes. That is the biggest problem with our economic system.

The paradoxical aspect of it is that in a TRULY free market this wouldn't be a problem, and what the capitalists are advocating for is a system that allows them to get richer, NOT a free market. Meanwhile, we're all just sitting under fluorescent lights chasing the interest.

whygohome

A great article. Something tells me that this will never change. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Madison, Wall St...............................

Newch91

I saw something like this on Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... h-poor-gap

I clicked on the link on the bottom of the article and got more charts and information:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02 ... hart-graph

justam

I have an unusual response to this thread topic.

I think people make themselves more unhappy than they need to be by accepting the common views that everything should be fair, that it's even desirable to be one of the hoarding wealthy, ( ), that somehow the average person needs to have more to happy, that somehow those few ridiculously priviledged people must certainly be happier than the rest of America.

It's been scientifically proven that acquiring more does not bring lasting happiness to individuals. Just like consumers who get a rush from buying a new electronic device, acquiring more only bumps up people's happiness temporarily. So, chasing money ends up becoming like wanting a new pair of shoes to a person addicted to shopping. The people want the next item until they get it and then a little while later, they want something else.

I know it seems like I'm way off your topic, but I'm really not.

I'm just thinking about the whole idea of even continuing to stress out about comparisons between oneself and other people and more specifically about other people who are gluttonous and greedy enough to acquire most of the wealth of this country. Why do they need so much? Who the hell knows?! But, it doesn't make them happier than everyone else so in the big picture, why do we need to care?!

Or, do you fear that they'll steal all the food and water one day too? Now THAT would certainly be a problem. :?

whygohome

justam wrote:

I have an unusual response to this thread topic.

I think people make themselves more unhappy than they need to be by accepting the common views that everything should be fair, that it's even desirable to be one of the hoarding wealthy, ( ), that somehow the average person needs to have more to happy, that somehow those few ridiculously priviledged people must certainly be happier than the rest of America.

It's been scientifically proven that acquiring more does not bring lasting happiness to individuals. Just like consumers who get a rush from buying a new electronic device, acquiring more only bumps up people's happiness temporarily. So, chasing money ends up becoming like wanting a new pair of shoes to a person addicted to shopping. The people want the next item until they get it and then a little while later, they want something else.

I know it seems like I'm way off your topic, but I'm really not.

I'm just thinking about the whole idea of even continuing to stress out about comparisons between oneself and other people and more specifically about other people who are gluttonous and greedy enough to acquire most of the wealth of this country. Why do they need so much? Who the hell knows?! But, it doesn't make them happier than everyone else so in the big picture, why do we need to care?!

Or, do you fear that they'll steal all the food and water one day too? Now THAT would certainly be a problem. :?

I don't want/need more....and I am in Graduate School; I don't have money.

I just want some people to feel the charity in themselves to "sacrifice" a little bit for the benefit of the community. That's it. That would mean better infrastructure, more funding for schools (and more schools), public transportation, and programs to help the homeless; that means more medical centers, more funding for fire stations, a more efficient police force, and more opportunities to have festivals, concerts, and playgrounds for the kids.

That is just a start.

dasvidana

I don't think the discussion is about getting more wealthy but in having more power. In America, money is power. So if 10% of the country (which I argue is mostly multinational corporate elite) have the power, it means that they can (and do) set up the system to benefit themselves at the expense of the the rest. People may not understand that the corporate elite control just about everything.....the quality of the air we breathe, the news we can access through mainstream media, the loans we can apply for for homes, cars, and small businesses, the healthcare we can get coverage for ......it's really very scary and will likely get worse now that corporations can legally buy politicians via the Citizens United ruling. Grim, grim future.

pandora

justam wrote:

I have an unusual response to this thread topic.

I think people make themselves more unhappy than they need to be by accepting the common views that everything should be fair, that it's even desirable to be one of the hoarding wealthy, ( ), that somehow the average person needs to have more to happy, that somehow those few ridiculously priviledged people must certainly be happier than the rest of America.

It's been scientifically proven that acquiring more does not bring lasting happiness to individuals. Just like consumers who get a rush from buying a new electronic device, acquiring more only bumps up people's happiness temporarily. So, chasing money ends up becoming like wanting a new pair of shoes to a person addicted to shopping. The people want the next item until they get it and then a little while later, they want something else.

I know it seems like I'm way off your topic, but I'm really not.

I'm just thinking about the whole idea of even continuing to stress out about comparisons between oneself and other people and more specifically about other people who are gluttonous and greedy enough to acquire most of the wealth of this country. Why do they need so much? Who the hell knows?! But, it doesn't make them happier than everyone else so in the big picture, why do we need to care?!

Or, do you fear that they'll steal all the food and water one day too? Now THAT would certainly be a problem. :?

I agree with being positive and not getting hung up on money..it comes and it goes.

One decade you may be sitting pretty the next without health insurance and struggling in a failing small business.
This is the big picture... you can say life sucks and then you die or you can say life was good and now I'll move on.

But and there is a but..the children.

Our children don't have a chance in hell unless they have some wealth
in the future years to come. And what about their children.

The future does not look bright and above all else those who hold the real power don't care,
'there ain't gonna be no middle anymore'
and this is where most of us came from the middle class...which means we are sinking fast
So what we gonna do about it?

FiveB247x

The New American Dream - economic immobility.

blackredyellow

Gotta love politics too...

With the Wisconsin union mess, workings taking a 14% paycut is for the betterment of the state and "doing their part", etc etc etc, but a 3% tax increase to the richest of the rich is socialism. Well played...

megatron

when i don't have enough money i get another job. when i get sick i get rocked with medical bills and eventually pay them off. i don't have enough money to support a family so i don't have one. life is annoying but i don't remember resenting the top 1%

know1

Yawn.....

I tune out when I hear whining about "fair" wage and CEO compensation.

whygohome

blackredyellow wrote:

Gotta love politics too...

With the Wisconsin union mess, workings taking a 14% paycut is for the betterment of the state and "doing their part", etc etc etc, but a 3% tax increase to the richest of the rich is socialism. Well played...

Bravo! Bravo!

inlet13

I rarely post in here, but I had to chime in here...

Charts like these are purposefully misleading. The blue lines representing the poorest Americans could have more than doubled/tripled, yet because of the scale, a reader wouldn't be able to tell.

So, I will ask a thought-provoking question... why did the author not use "growth" as the scale of comparison? That way the top,middle and lower classes could have been compared on the chart with ease. This exclusion = an agenda in my eyes.

I also find it very interesting they use "before tax income". The richest 1% of American's pay almost 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% pay almost 60%. Why use before tax income when we have such a progressive tax system? It makes the argument silly.

Regardless, it's an interesting discussion. But, I still don't understand even if has occured in after tax income why income inequality is necessarily bad. If you have ten people in society and the richest makes 100K and the poorest makes 10K. If each has 10% growth in their income over a year, the richest would now make 110K and the poorest now makes 11K. The gap has grown, yet all are better off. Income inequality can be a very, very good thing for a society.

Ok... so now that I got that out, I'm ready to go away.

dasvidana

know1 wrote:

Yawn.....

I tune out when I hear whining about "fair" wage and CEO compensation.

if you're so tuned out, then why bother posting in the thread?

inmytree

know1 wrote:

Yawn.....

I tune out when I hear whining about "fair" wage and CEO compensation.

thanks for posting... :thumbup: :thumbup:

inmytree

inlet13 wrote:

I rarely post in here, but I had to chime in here...

Charts like these are purposefully misleading. The blue lines representing the poorest Americans could have more than doubled/tripled, yet because of the scale, a reader wouldn't be able to tell.

So, I will ask a thought-provoking question... why did the author not use "growth" as the scale of comparison? That way the top,middle and lower classes could have been compared on the chart with ease. This exclusion = an agenda in my eyes.

I also find it very interesting they use "before tax income". The richest 1% of American's pay almost 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% pay almost 60%. Why use before tax income when we have such a progressive tax system? It makes the argument silly.

Regardless, it's an interesting discussion. But, I still don't understand even if has occured in after tax income why income inequality is necessarily bad. If you have ten people in society and the richest makes 100K and the poorest makes 10K. If each has 10% growth in their income over a year, the richest would now make 110K and the poorest now makes 11K. The gap has grown, yet all are better off. Income inequality can be a very, very good thing for a society.

Ok... so now that I got that out, I'm ready to go away.

:?

I have no idea what you're talking about...

very very good for society... :roll:

gabers

whygohome wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Gotta love politics too...

With the Wisconsin union mess, workings taking a 14% paycut is for the betterment of the state and "doing their part", etc etc etc, but a 3% tax increase to the richest of the rich is socialism. Well played...

Bravo! Bravo!

What really galls me is that that little 3% for the nation's top earners is nothing compared to the 90% tax rates for the wealthiest in the post WWII era (which includes a Republican president - Eisenhower). Obviously, those were draconian, but if going from 36% to 39% is Socialism I'm not sure what that made post war America.

know1

inlet13 wrote:

I rarely post in here, but I had to chime in here...

Charts like these are purposefully misleading. The blue lines representing the poorest Americans could have more than doubled/tripled, yet because of the scale, a reader wouldn't be able to tell.

So, I will ask a thought-provoking question... why did the author not use "growth" as the scale of comparison? That way the top,middle and lower classes could have been compared on the chart with ease. This exclusion = an agenda in my eyes.

I also find it very interesting they use "before tax income". The richest 1% of American's pay almost 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% pay almost 60%. Why use before tax income when we have such a progressive tax system? It makes the argument silly.

Regardless, it's an interesting discussion. But, I still don't understand even if has occured in after tax income why income inequality is necessarily bad. If you have ten people in society and the richest makes 100K and the poorest makes 10K. If each has 10% growth in their income over a year, the richest would now make 110K and the poorest now makes 11K. The gap has grown, yet all are better off. Income inequality can be a very, very good thing for a society.

Ok... so now that I got that out, I'm ready to go away.

I thought the same thing. Charts and data can be made to be purposefully misleading and that is what was done here. People fall for that so easily without really analyzing what is being said...or more importantly what is NOT being said.

whygohome

inlet13 wrote:

I rarely post in here, but I had to chime in here...

Regardless, it's an interesting discussion. But, I still don't understand even if has occured in after tax income why income inequality is necessarily bad. If you have ten people in society and the richest makes 100K and the poorest makes 10K. If each has 10% growth in their income over a year, the richest would now make 110K and the poorest now makes 11K. The gap has grown, yet all are better off. Income inequality can be a very, very good thing for a society.

Ok... so now that I got that out, I'm ready to go away.

Wow.

inmytree

know1 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I rarely post in here, but I had to chime in here...

Charts like these are purposefully misleading. The blue lines representing the poorest Americans could have more than doubled/tripled, yet because of the scale, a reader wouldn't be able to tell.

So, I will ask a thought-provoking question... why did the author not use "growth" as the scale of comparison? That way the top,middle and lower classes could have been compared on the chart with ease. This exclusion = an agenda in my eyes.

I also find it very interesting they use "before tax income". The richest 1% of American's pay almost 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% pay almost 60%. Why use before tax income when we have such a progressive tax system? It makes the argument silly.

Regardless, it's an interesting discussion. But, I still don't understand even if has occured in after tax income why income inequality is necessarily bad. If you have ten people in society and the richest makes 100K and the poorest makes 10K. If each has 10% growth in their income over a year, the richest would now make 110K and the poorest now makes 11K. The gap has grown, yet all are better off. Income inequality can be a very, very good thing for a society.

Ok... so now that I got that out, I'm ready to go away.

I thought the same thing. Charts and data can be made to be purposefully misleading and that is what was done here. People fall for that so easily without really analyzing what is being said...or more importantly what is NOT being said.

Yawn.....

I tune out when I hear whining about "fair" wage and CEO compensation.

:shifty: :wtf: