Think progress
gfy
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...47#post6087047
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202588
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202581
So between the three of these, have we been able to figure out yet why the income class that had the highest percentage of their net wealth tied up in their homes faired the worst during a recession caused by a real estate crash?
It's the repugs fault. That's all that we need to know.
I'm still waiting on my Obama Mortgage & Gas voucher
To be fair, the OP article measures aggregated house income, not net wealth...
millions of homes were not only devalued from Bankster-inflated levels, but millions lost their homes, their good jobs, etc, etc.
This one, yes. The OP's in boutons & vy's threads measured overall wealth.
cluster of thread comparisons tbh..
not really. CG nailed it.
Bush started with a $128 billion SURPLUS & ended with a $1.4 trillion DEFICIT. Obama was handed that spending during the worst GLOBAL economic collapse in 100 years.
* $600 billion in deficit reduction since Bush's last budget.
* Lowest spending increases since Eisenhower.
* 30 months of private sector job growth, including small businesses.
* 35% of American companies are now hiring.
* Construction is on the rise.
* Record corporate profits & Wall Street values. They sit on $3.6 trillion in cash.
* More millionaires and billionaires every year.
* Lowest real tax rates on the rich since 1928.
* 21 new tax cuts for middle-class families.
* 18 new tax cuts for small businesses.
* First growth in manufacturing sectors in 30 years.
* Americans #1 in worker productivity.
* Household debt reduced by half-a-trillion.
* Gas prices peaked at $4.12 under Bush.
And:
* Obama has proposed $4 trillion in additional debt reduction, but the GOP have blocked him.
* Republicans partisanship in Congress is the primary reason for the downgrade of USA's credit rating.
* Romney has said military spending is off-limits for cutting ($683.7 billion in 2010)
But there's a 8% unemployment rate still, right? That's in large part due to the 700,000 government jobs that have been cut, including States cutting 230,000 teachers and 130,000 police/emergency responders.
* 7.5 million jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009. Expecting a quick recovery of equal magnitude is irrational.
* Historically, Democratic presidents have created jobs at a faster rate than Republicans (2m/y vs 1m/y).
* 2.8 million jobs have been added in the last 18 months.
* We're in a recovery, thanks to Obama.
We need more trickle down?
* CorpUSA and the 1% are sitting on $3.6 trillion cash.
* Wages & household income continues to drop in spite of record corporate profits
The overall argument we need to make: The GOP are peddling the wrong kind of (failed) capitalism. It's time to divest from Wall Street and the finance markets. It's time America return to Main Street and manufacturing. As long as we let the finance sector dominate our economy, it's just a matter of time before the society completely collapses.
clinton never had surpluses, that's a common myth. he paid down the public debt with money borrowed from social security, that's all that ever happened.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...yth/page/full/
That's wasn't even an option for Clinton (or any other president)... that's how the budget is calculated. The prez can't say "I won't borrow"... it's mandated by law... Craig doesn't really like how the budgeting system works or is calculated (and I can't blame him), but under the current system, that's effectively a surplus (of the public debt).
except it's not a true surplus..it's borrowing money from one creditor to pay another. what happens whenever people start retiring and then the money isn't there in SS?
spending more money than you take in is spending more money than you take in, no matter which way you spin it.
When will you liberals stop propagating that lie?
There has not been a surplus since I think 1969. That was the last year the debt decreased.
Why would their money not be there in SS?
But regardless, none of that was under Clinton's control. The way those trust funds work are established by law. Congress would need to be the one that needs to prevent such automatic borrowing from happening.
because it is being borrowed to pay down the public debt. all that money the boomers paid in, isn't there. they're banking on the new generation paying for the old generation and when us youngsters get old the new generation of youngsters doing the same for us.
except it won't work because there are so many boomers, they are living longer, and us young people aren't making jack . they grossly miscalculated.
The government controls the money supply. As long as the debt is in US dollars, the money will be always there.
Yet everyone is fat as , own 3 cars, paying for college tuition and a 2500sq ft home. Everyone has a 120.00 month phone plan, an Iphone, Ipad2 and two different gaming consoles on 2 different 60" flat panel TVs. They have more food in their houses than they can eat and most gets discarded due to age.
They are in debt but their standard of living isn't getting worse.
middle class makes up the majority of taxpayers, and the easiest to target whether its rising that band of taxpayers rates etc....
its even worst if ur an individual taxpayer compared to a family...not many benefits etc a individual taxpayer has access too..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
